PASSOW v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (1938)

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

PASSOW v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

Civ. 10770.

Decided: February 16, 1938

Robert E. Hatch, of San Francisco, for petitioner.

The petition for a writ of prohibition is denied upon the grounds that, in the proceeding pending before the respondent court to strike “the settlement and certification of the bill of exceptions” by the trial judge, the respondent court has jurisdiction to alter or amend its records so as to cause them to “speak the truth.” Dowd v. Superior Court, 69 Cal.App. 4, 230 P. 961; In re Silva, 213 Cal. 446, 450, 2 P.2d 341. Though the petitioner herein contends that the respondent court threatens to go beyond these limits and to correct judicial errors theretofore made, we may not assume that the respondent court will exceed its jurisdiction in that respect. But, if this should occur, the petitioner has an adequate remedy at law.

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Out of date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