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

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

SEVERNS DRILLING CO., Limited, v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al.

Civ. 11026.

Decided: July 08, 1936

Chandler, Wright & Ward, and Swaffield & Swaffield, all of Los Angeles, for petitioner. Everett W. Mattoon, Co. Counsel, D. De Coster, Deputy Co. Counsel, and Lawler & Felix, all of Los Angeles, for respondents.

This is an application for a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondent court from enforcing its order authorizing an inspection and survey of an oil well owned and operated by petitioner.

An examination of the record before us discloses that the trial court had jurisdiction to authorize and require the survey of petitioner's oil well. Union Oil Co. of California v. Reconstruction Oil Co. et al. (Cal.Sup.) 51 P.(2d) 81.

Therefore, since the trial court had jurisdiction to make and enter its order, the writ of prohibition must be denied. The rule is well settled that the sole province of a writ of prohibition is to arrest proceedings of a tribunal or persons exercising judicial functions, when without or in excess of jurisdiction. County of Sutter v. Superior Court of California, 188 Cal. 292, 295, 204 P. 849.

The application for a writ of prohibition is denied, and the alternative writ is vacated and quashed.

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Out of date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