Turesky v. Superior Court, in and for Los Angeles County
| Decision Date | 31 May 1950 |
| Citation | 97 Cal.App.2d 838,218 P.2d 784 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | . Civ. 17770. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California |
Gilman, Gilman & Shearer, Los Angeles, Elizabeth Gilman, Los Angeles, for petitioner.
Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Wm. E. Lamoreaux, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondent.
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directing the Superior court to hear and determine his petition for change of name. The admitted facts are that on February 15, 1950, petitioner filed a petition for change of name and procured an order to show cause in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County pursuant to sections 1275-1279, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure; that all of the requirements of the aforesaid sections were complied with by petitioner. That on March 21, 1950, said petition came on regularly for hearing before respondent court. That upon evidence appearing that petitioner had not been a resident of the State of California for one year, the matter was continued upon respondent court's own motion to September 12, 1950, over petitioner's objection. That at the time and place of said hearing respondent court announced from the bench that a policy had been established by the judge formerly presiding in that department of the court to the effect that a year's residence in the State of California would be required before the court would act upon any petition for change of name, and for that reason the court refused to hear the petition.
By its answer respondent court alleges that 'for many years it has been the established policy of Respondent Court to require residence in the State of California for the period of one year prior to granting a petition for change of name; that Respondent Court has followed that policy for the reason that within the knowledge and experience of said Court the following classes of persons attempt to change their names upon first arriving in the State:
'1. Persons who are fugitives from justice from other states;
'2. Persons who are attempting to evade their creditors;
'3. Persons who are attempting to evade family responsibilities.
'That the purpose of requiring a year's residence is to permit a reasonable length of time for law enforcement officers, creditors and dependents to ascertain the whereabouts of applicants for change of name.'
The statutes of this state have not abrogated the common-law right to change one's name, and resort to legal proceedings to accomplish such change is not necessary. The purpose of the statutory procedure is simply to establish a change of name as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Price v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...Gering v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 29, 230 P.2d 356; Robinson v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 379, 218 P.2d 10; Turesky v. Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.2d 838, 218 P.2d 784; City of San Diego v. Andrews, 195 Cal. 111, 231 P. 726. And the court does and should exercise jurisdiction in transitory......
-
Saidi-Tabatabai v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County
...Cal.App.2d 99, 102--103, 48 Cal.Rptr. 445; Schaefer v. Superior Court, 113 Cal.App.2d 428, 438--439, 248 P.2d 450; Turesky v. Superior Court, 248 Cal.App.2d 838, 218 P.2d 784; Gering v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 29, 230 P.2d 356; In re Brumback, 46 Cal.2d 810, 299 P.2d Since a court may be ......
-
Albermont Petroleum, Limited v. Cunningham
...758, 290 p. 18)--and their relation to any statutory or constitutional provision in the same or a related field. Turesky v. Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.2d 838, 218 P.2d 784; Henry v. Willett, 60 Cal.App. 244, 212 P. 698; Conae v. Conae, 109 Cal.App.2d 696, 241 P.2d 266; Klokke Investment Com......
-
Manickam v. Halagatti (In re Marriage of Manickam)
...It therefore did not violate its duty to decide all of the issues in the dissolution proceeding. (Cf. Turesky v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 838, 839.) The context of the court's stay order is instructive. It arose because Manickam requested an order that he be......