History
  • No items yet
midpage
Cook v. Noble
186 P. 150
Cal.
1919
Check Treatment
THE COURT.

Petitioner, a justice of the peace in Kern

County, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, city recorder of the city of Taft, in Kern County, to allow him to practice law before him. Section 171 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides “nor shall any justice of the peace practice law before any justice’s court in the county In which he resides.” [1] In view of the nature and jurisdiction of a recorder’s court in a city or town, it being practically a justice’s court, we are satisfied it comes within the spirit and policy of the provision of section 171 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that, we have quoted, and that petitioner has no lawful right to practice in respondent’s court. [2] Regardless of any other question presented, it is well settled that mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of acts which are illegal, contrary to public policy, or which tend to aid an unlawful purpose. (See Godwin v. Carolina Tel. & Tel. Co., 136 N. C. 258, [103 Am. St. Rep. 941, 1 Ann. Cas. 203, and note, 67 L. R. A. 251, 48 S. E. 636].)

The application for a writ of mandamm is denied.

Angellotti, C. J., Wilbur, J., Lawlor, J., Olney, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: Cook v. Noble
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Dec 18, 1919
Citation: 186 P. 150
Docket Number: L. A. No. 6383.
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In