LOS ANGELES DRUG CO v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY (1936)

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

LOS ANGELES DRUG CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY.†

Civ. 11090.

Decided: July 10, 1936

William H. Haupt, of Los Angeles, for petitioner. Macfarland, Scheinman & Sisenwein, of Los Angeles (Max Sisenwein and David Blonder, both of Los Angeles, of counsel), for respondent.

This is an application for a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondent court from making an order discharging a writ of attachment levied by petitioner. It is settled that a writ of prohibition will issue only when the lower tribunal does not have jurisdiction or exceeds its jurisdiction. Cline v. Superior Court, 184 Cal. 331, 334, 193 P. 929. In the instant case the respondent court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the application to dissolve the attachment. Hence this court will not review any alleged errors of the trial court on this application. Lightner Mining Co. v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.App. 642, 646, 112 P. 909; Cooke v. Superior Court, 73 Cal.App. 744, 748, 239 P. 381.

For the foregoing reasons, the application for a writ of prohibition is denied, and the alternative writ is quashed and vacated.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network