27 P.2d 671 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1933
On motion of respondents, under Rule V, subdivision 3, of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal, for an order dismissing appeal or affirming the judgment.
This is the second appeal arising out of this proceeding. On the former appeal (
The judgment thus having been reversed, the petitioner was by the superior court permitted to file an amended and supplemental petition, to which respondents demurred and the demurrer was sustained. Thereafter, in due course, judgment was entered denying the application for peremptory writ of prohibition. The present appeal is from this last judgment.
[1] The contention by appellant that one of the members of the Board of Medical Examiners was disqualified to sit and hear and determine the charge against petitioner presents *615
practically the same question which was decided adversely to appellant's contention in the case of Dyment v. Board ofMedical Examiners,
[3] Finally it is contended by appellant that because the amended and supplemental petition stated, and the demurrer necessarily admitted, that the Board of Medical Examiners intended to try the charges against petitioner on the eighteenth day of October, 1932, notwithstanding that the alternative writ of prohibition was still in force, this fact entitled appellant to the demanded permanent writ of prohibition. There is no merit in this point. If by proceeding at that time the board was violating any command contained in the alternative writ, there was another and more appropriate available method of enforcing the authority of the court.
As there appears to be no merit in the appeal, and no question presented which would justify further discussion, the motion to affirm should be granted.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed.
Houser, J., and York, J., concurred. *616