Case Name: WILLIAM H. F. PRESTON, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1921-01-17
Citations: 184 Cal. 658
Docket Number: L. A. No. 6775
Parties: WILLIAM H. F. PRESTON, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 184
Pages: 658–661

Head Matter:
[L. A. No. 6775.
In Bank.
January 17, 1921.]
WILLIAM H. F. PRESTON, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Respondents.
Prohibition — Action by Receiver — Capacity to Sue — Determination in Pending Action—Jurisdiction.—A writ of prohibition will not lie to restrain the superior court from proceeding with the trial of an action instituted by a receiver on the ground that his appointment was not within the power of the court, since the right of the plaintiff to maintain the action in such capacity is to be determined in the action itself, and if error be committed, it is error in the exercise of jurisdiction, reviewable on appeal.
Appeal—Hearing After Decision by District Court of Appeal — Submission Without Argument — Prohibition Proceeding — Applicability of Rule.—A proceeding to prohibit a superior court from proceeding with the trial of a cause pending therein in which it is obvious that the court has jurisdiction both of the subject matter and of the parties and that the matter complained of as constituting an excess of jurisdiction is simply one of the issues to be determined in the cause, is a proper case for the application of subdivision 5 of rule XXX of the supreme court, providing that when a cause is transferred for determination to the supreme court after decision by a district court of appeal, the supreme court, if it deems such course proper, may order the cause forthwith submitted for decision upon the briefs on file, without further argument.
Prohibition — Capacity of Receiver to Sue — Appointment by Same Court Immaterial.—In a proceeding to prohibit a superior court from proceeding with the trial of an action instituted by a receiver on the ground that his appointment was not lawful, it is immaterial whether such action was instituted in the superior court of the county wherein he claims to have been appointed, or in the superior court of some other county.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Prohibition to enjoin a Superior Court from proceeding with the trial of an action brought by a receiver.
Denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Henry J. Stevens, Norman A. Bailie and John T. Jones for Petitioner.
Alfred H. McAdoo for Respondents.
1. Jurisdictional question as reviewable by prohibition, note, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 595.

Opinion:
ANGELLOTTI, C. J.
Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition enjoining the superior court of Los Angeles County from proceeding with the trial of an action instituted against him therein for the recovery of money alleged to be due from him and others to a corporation by one who sues as the receiver of the property of the corporation appointed by the superior court in another action, in which such corporation was the defendant, and also to enjoin such receiver from further acting under the order of appointment. In so far as the writ is sought against the alleged receiver it will not lie, as he is not exercising judicial functions. As to the superior court, petitioner's claim here is that the superior court had no power in such action to appoint a receiver, with the result that the order of appointment is a nullity. If we assume this to be true, it does not follow that there is any excess of jurisdiction on the part of the superior court in entertaining and determining the action brought against petitioner. That the superior court has full and complete jurisdiction to hear and determine that action cannot be doubted. The question of the right of the plaintiff therein to maintain the action in the capacity in which he sues is a question that must be determined in such action exactly as where one sues as the administrator of the estate of a deceased person, any question as to his right to sue in that capacity must be determined in the action itself. If, in the determination of such a question, the trial court errs, it is error in the exercise of jurisdiction, and the aggrieved party's remedy is an appeal from the judgment given in the action. Prohibition lies only to restrain acts in excess of jurisdiction, and the petition in this matter fails utterly to state a case in this behalf.
We express no opinion as to the validity of the order appointing a receiver, as that question is not here involved.
The application for a writ of prohibition is denied.
Shaw, J., Wilbur, J., Sloane, J., Lawlor, J., and Olney, J., concurred.
Rehearing denied.
In denying a rehearing the court filed the following opinion on February 15, 1921: