Case ID: cal_171/html/0272-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ANGELLOTTI, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[S. F. No. 7604.
    In Bank.
    October 28, 1915.]
    CITY OF SAN BRUNO (a Municipal Corporation), Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY et al., Respondents.
    Prohibition — Municipal Corporations — Certiorari to Review Annexation Proceedings.—Prohibition will not lie, at the instance of a municipal corporation, to restrain the superior court from proceeding in certiorari to review the acts of the municipality had in proceedings for the annexation of territory, as the municipality has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal from any judgment rendered in the certiorari proceeding by which it may be aggrieved.
    
      APPLICATION for a Writ of Prohibition, directed to the Superior Court of San Mateo County, to restrain said court from proceeding with the hearing and determination of a proceeding in certiorari instituted to review certain acts of the city of San Bruno, a municipal corporation, performed by it in proceedings for the annexation of territory. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Mason & Locke, and C. N. Kirkbride, for Petitioner.
   ANGELLOTTI, C. J.

The application for a writ of prohibition is denied. In denying the application it is proper to say that this court is not to be regarded as intimating any opinion as to the sufficiency of the petition for a writ of certiorari in the proceeding pending in the superior court of San Mateo County, or as to the right of said superior court to review in certiorari such proceedings as the petitioner in that proceeding is there seeking to have reviewed. The application for a writ of prohibition is denied on the ground that the petitioner here will have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal from any judgment rendered by said superior court in the certiorari proceeding, by which it may be aggrieved.

Melvin, J., Shaw, J., Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.