# Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Superior Court

> California Court of Appeal · March 23, 1911 · 15 Cal. App. 679

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9864656

## Case

- **Full name:** WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a Corporation, SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, a Corporation, and CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation, Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and Honorable C. N. POST, Judge Thereof, Respondents
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** March 23, 1911
- **Citations:** 15 Cal. App. 679; 115 P. 1091; 1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 296
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Hart
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9864656

## Opinion text

THE COURT.
The petition for a transfer of this cause for rehearing in the supreme court after decision in the district court of appeal is denied without regard to the merits of the controversy between the real parties in interest, and upon the sole ground that in our opinion the remedy by prohibition is not available to the petitioners. It is sought by this proceeding to prohibit the superior court from hearing an application by a foreign corporation to condemn private property for a public use upon the ground that the superior court has no jurisdiction to listen to such an application by such a party.
It is true that the capacity of a foreign corporation to exercise the power of eminent domain in this state is purely a question of law, but it is a question as much within the jurisdiction of the superior court as other questions of law arising in similar cases which are held to be reviewable here only on appeal.
We have deemed it proper to make this explicit statement of our reasons for refusing to transfer the cause to this court for a further hearing, in order to guard against the assumption that the decision of the district court of appeal upon the questions therein so fully discussed is a precedent binding upon this court or the trial court—the question being one as to which we prefer to reserve our opinion until after more mature consideration than we have been able to give it.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9864656. Public record. Not legal advice.