General
ANNIE R. VALLEAU v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
62 Cal. 290·Supreme Court of California·1882·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[No. 8,693.
Department Two.]
December 6, 1882.
ANNIE R. VALLEAU v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
Statement on Appeal—Settlement—Mandamus.—Mandamus to a Judge of a Superior Court to compel him to settle a statement on appeal to this Court. The proposed statement was made up of the Reporter’s notes, taken at the trial and written out in long hand.
Held:- This is not the proper manner in which a bill of exceptions or statement on appeal should be prepared, and the Court will not sanction such a practice. Writ denied.
Application for writ of mandamus to Chas. Halsey, Judge of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco.
Severance, Travers & Hornblower, for Plaintiff.
Geo. D. Shadbowrne, for Defendant.
[MAJORITY — The Court:]
The Court:
This is an application for a writ of mandamus, to compel the respondent, who is a Judge of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, to settle a statement on appeal to this Court. Several reasons are assigned for the refusal of the Judge to settle the statement, only one of which will be noticed, as that is sufficient to sustain the respondent’s action in the case.
The proposed statement is made up of the reporter’s notes, taken at the trial and written out in long hand. This is not the proper manner in which a bill of exceptions, or statement on appeal, should be prepared, and we will not sanction such a practice. It has been justly condemned in several cases (People v. Getty, 49 Cal. 584; Caldwell v. Parks, 50 id. 502), and this caso comes within the rule therein laid down.
Writ denied.