Case Name: LEONIDE G. AUZERAIS, Petitioner, v. J. V. COFFEY, as Judge of the Superior Court, etc., Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1909-01-04
Citations: 155 Cal. 102
Docket Number: S. F. No. 5093
Parties: LEONIDE G. AUZERAIS, Petitioner, v. J. V. COFFEY, as Judge of the Superior Court, etc., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 102–102

Head Matter:
[S. F. No. 5093.
In Bank.
January 4, 1909.]
LEONIDE G. AUZERAIS, Petitioner, v. J. V. COFFEY, as Judge of the Superior Court, etc., Respondent.
Keceiver—Insolvent Bank—Denial op Leave to Sue—Discretion. —De Forrest v. Coffey, 154 Cal. 444, approved, to the effect that the superior court having jurisdiction of an action in which a receiver of an insolvent banking corporation was appointed, did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to sue the receiver in an independent action.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate directed to the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. V. Coffey, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
J. J. Lermen, for Petitioner.
J. V. De Laveaga, and E. DeLos Magee, for Respondent.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
This is an application for a writ • of mandate requiring the defendant, a judge of the superior court, to grant to the plaintiff permission to institute an action against E. J. Le Breton, as receiver of the California Safe Deposit and Trust Company, an insolvent corporation. The proceeding was instituted in the district court of appeal for the first appellate district, and, after judgment by that court denying the application for a writ, the matter was ordered transferred to this court for determination.
The facts here presented differ in no essential respect from those which were before us in DeForrest v. Coffey, 154 Cal. 444, [98 Pac. 27], decided since the making of the order transferring this proceeding from the district court of appeal, and on the grounds set forth in the opinion there filed, it must be held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to sue the receiver.
It is ordered that the application for a writ of mandate be denied.
Beatty, C. J., dissented.