General
LUCE, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT, etc., Respondent
2 Cal. Unrep. 167·Supreme Court of California·1883·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
LUCE, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT, etc., Respondent.
No. 8897;
April 6, 1883.
Prohibition.—A Writ of Prohibition Does not Lie in a ease open to appeal.
Appeal.—Where, in a Foreclosure Case, the Court Orders the Sale of exempt property, the error, if any, is to be corrected by appeal.
Prohibition.
Edward Lynch for petitioner; J. P. Meux for respondent.
[MAJORITY — By the COURT.]
By the COURT.
Petition for a writ of prohibition. Demurrer to the petition. The question is: Can a court foreclose a mortgage, and, on such foreclosure, order a sale of personal property included in the mortgage, which property was in fact exempt by law from sale under execution? In such a case, we see no reason whatever for the issuance of a writ of prohibition. If any error has occurred, it can be reviewed on appeal.
The demurrer is sustained, and the alternative writ heretofore issued is discharged.