Mitchell v. Superior Court of California In and For LosAngeles County

Decision Date06 July 1950
Citation219 P.2d 861,98 Cal.App.2d 304
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties. Civ. 17929. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California

William C. Ring, Los Angeles, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner has pending in the Superior Court an action for the partition of real property. Trial was had for two days.

While plaintiff was married to defendant, the property was acquired as community property. In 1931 petitioner was granted a divorce from defendant in the State of Texas. Texas, of course, could not adjudicate title to California real property. Defendant as minister of a church uses the property, which is improved with a church building, without paying anything to petitioner.

Petitioner contends that the court should have partitioned the property, either in kind, or by sale and division of the proceeds. The court made a minute order, finding that at the time the property was acquired petitioner's equity in it was $500. Apparently no judgment has yet been rendered.

While petitioner presents a convincing argument, we think her remedy is by appeal. The rules respecting high prerogative writs have been recently reviewed and restated in Phelan v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 363, 217 P.2d 951, 955. There it is said: 'Where * * * there is a right to an immediate review by appeal, that remedy is almost as speedy as a writ proceeding, under present practice, and should be considered adequate unless petitioner can show some special reason why it is rendered inadequate by the particular circumstances of his case.'

The most petitioner shows in this regard is that an appeal will take time and cost money. This is insufficient.

For the reasons given in Phelan v. Superior Court, supra, and in Robinson v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 379, 218 P.2d 10, the petition is denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Hogya v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 16, 1977
    ...in the use of an extraordinary writ. (Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, supra, 28 Cal.2d 460, 466, 171 P.2d 8; Mitchell v. Superior Court, 98 Cal.App.2d 304, 219 P.2d 861.) In the case of most interim orders, "the parties must be relegated to a review of the order on appeal from the final jud......
  • People v. The Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 12, 2022
    ... THE PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KINGS COUNTY, Respondent; ALFREDO PARAMO SOLORIO, Real Party in Interest. F082833 ...          The. People of the State of California, through the Kings County. District Attorney, petitioned for a writ ... as a writ proceeding.'" ( Mitchell v. Superior. Court (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 304, 304; accord, Phelan. ......
  • Lohr v. Superior Court of Cal. in and for Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 20, 1952
    .... Page 5. 244 P.2d 5. 111 Cal.App.2d 231. LOHR. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY. Civ. 18904. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, ... In Mitchell v. Superior Court, 98 Cal.App.2d 304, at page 305, 219 P.2d 861, 862, which was a proceeding in ......
  • Tide Water Associated Oil Co. v. Superior Court, s. 20248-20250
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 1954
    ...561185 would be inadequate in that it would entail a large expenditure of time and money. As declared in Mitchell v. Superior Court (1950), 98 Cal.App.2d 304, 305, 219 P.2d 861, 'This is Fourth: The trial court impliedly found that the matters set forth in the cross-complaint arose out of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT