Sansome v. Myers
Citations
- 80 Cal. 483
- 22 P. 212
- 1889 Cal. LEXIS 942
Syllabus
<p>Bill of Exceptions — Settlement—Mandamus.—Mandamus will lie to compel a superior judge to settle a bill of exceptions which he has improperly refused to settle; and he is not justified in refusing to settle it because it is inaccurate, untrue in many respects, meager, and partial, and a defective skeleton of the testimony and evidence. It is the duty of the judge to settle the bill of exceptions, though he may require it to be corrected, if incorrect, before signing it; but he has no right to refuse to settle it in the first instance because of its imperfections. The judge may require the party to make and present a proper statement, if it is incomplete.</p>
Judges: Beatty, McFarland, Works
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Randall v. MousseauCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2016-08-24· cited 61×
- Western States Construction Co. v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1951-12-14· cited 18×
- Eisenberg v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1956-05-29· cited 11×
- Walkerley v. GreeneCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-09-25· cited 8×
- Cohen v. WallaceCalifornia Supreme Court· 1895-04-06· cited 8×
- St. Clair v. BullockCalifornia Supreme Court· 1938-12-22· cited 6×
- Winters v. BuckCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-06-25· cited 5×
- Clough v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1936-10-09· cited 2×
- Martínez v. Soto NussaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1915-06-22· cited 1×
- Randall v. MousseauCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2016-09-16
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.