Marsh v. Superior Court
Marsh v. Superior Court
Opinion of the Court
The petition herein is insufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ asked for.
The petition does not show that the order of the superior court removing B. T. Whiteside from the position of assignee or trustee, under the deed of assignment executed for the benefit of the creditors of the insolvent firm of Blum, Eppstein & Co., was made without notice to Whiteside.
The averment that the petition filed in the superior court, asking for the removal of said Whiteside, contained “no allegations of any legal cause why said Whiteside should be removed,” is but the statement of a conclusion of law, and is not equivalent to a direct allegation that said petition did not charge that said Whiteside had violated or was unfit to execute the duties of trustee under said deed of assignment.
Application for writ denied.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- GEORGE T. MARSH v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Assignment for Benefit of Creditors — Appointment of Trustee by Court — Order Removing Trustee — Certiorari — Insufficient Petition. — A petition to the supreme court for a writ of review to annul an order of the superior court removing a trustee who had been previously appointed in place of a deceased assignee of an insolvent firm, to whom a deed of assignment had been made for the benefit of its creditors, and appointing another trustee in his stead, is insufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ, if it does not aver or show that the order was made without notice to the removed trustee, and that the petition for his removal did not charge that he had violated or was unfit to execute the duties of trustee under the deed of assignment. Id. — Cause for Removal of Trustee — Pleading — Conclusion of Law. — An averment, in the petition for a writ of review, that the petition asking for the removal of the assignee contained “ no allegations of any legal cause ” why the said assignee should be removed is simply a statement of a conclusion of law, and is not equivalent to an allegation that the petition did not charge that the assignee had violated or was unfit to execute the duties of trustee under the deed of assignment.