Case Name: CLARA J. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. THEODORE REICHERT, Surveyor-General, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1888-06-26
Citations: 77 Cal. 34
Docket Number: No. 12715
Parties: CLARA J. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. THEODORE REICHERT, Surveyor-General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 34–35

Head Matter:
[No. 12715.
In Bank.
June 26, 1888.]
CLARA J. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. THEODORE REICHERT, Surveyor-General, Respondent.
Mandamus. — The averments in an application to the supreme court for a -writ of mandate, that the questions involved are of great public importance, and are involved in numerous cases, and that a decision of the superior court would not be accepted by either party as final, and that the application is made to save time and expense, do not present a suffi- . cient reason why the application should not be made to the superior court.
Application to the supreme court for a writ of mandate to compel the. state surveyor-general to receive and file an application of the petitioner for the purchase of certain state lands, and to cancel the prior- application of another person, which had been filed more than six months previous, and had remained without approval, and without the filing of a clearance certificate from the register of the United States land-office at Los Angeles, the district where the lands were situated.
The application for the writ of mandate contained the following averments as to the reason therefor: “That the reason this application is made to this court is, that the questions involved in this case are of great public importance, and petitioner is informed and believes that there are about one hundred cases pending in the office of respondent, involving this question; that respondent is uncertain as to his duty in the premises; that neither party hereto would accept as final a decision from a superior court, and this case would, in any event,- have to come to this court for final determination; that petitioner has been informed that respondent would not accept as final a decision from a superior court in this case in the event it should be in favor of petitioner, and to save time, which becomes an important factor in this case, and expense, she makes application to this court in the first instance.”
Matt. F. Johnson, for Petitioner.

Opinion:
The Court.
The application for a writ of mandate in the above-entitled cause is hereby denied, for the reason that the application should be made in the superior court.