Case Name: GEORGE JOHNSON v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1882-06-06
Citations: 60 Cal. 578
Docket Number: No. 8,322
Parties: GEORGE JOHNSON v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 578–579

Head Matter:
[No. 8,322.
Department Two.]
June 6, 1882.
GEORGE JOHNSON v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
Substitution of Parties in Action—Administrator.—Certiorari to review a judgment of the Superior Court upon appeal from a Justice’s Court. Judgment affirmed.
Application for writ of certiorari.
The facts were as stated in the petition of the attorneys for plaintiff for a hearing in bank.
No briefs on file.
Flint & Stone, for Plaintiff. Petition to hear cause in bank.
The original plaintiff in the action, the proceedings in which are sought to be reviewed, was Samuel C. Harding. The judgment in the action was in favor of “ Samuel Newman, as administrator, with the will annexed of Samuel C. Harding, deceased,” whom, it is alleged, was not a party to the action. The only order of substitution attempted to be made in the case of Samuel G. Harding v. George Johnson appears in the record, and is as follows:
“ In the Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco, State of California. Samuel C. Harding v. George Johnson. In open Court, August 10, 1882. No. 322. In this cause, on motion of E. B. Drake, Esq., attorney for plaintiff, and suggestion of death of plaintiff, it is ordered that Samuel Newman be and he is hereby substituted as plaintiff.”

Opinion:
The Court:
The grounds upon which the writ of review was prayed and granted, were that in the action of Samuel C. Harding against the petitioner the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and that a judgment was rendered in favor of one Newman, who was not a party to .the action. Neither ground is tenable. The complaint states sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction, and the record shows that on motion of plaintiff's attorney and suggestion of the death of Harding, the original plaintiff, said Newman, administrator of'Harding's estate, was duly substituted as plaintiff in the action.
Judgment affirmed.