From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hagen v. Beth

Supreme Court of California
Sep 22, 1897
118 Cal. 330 (Cal. 1897)

Opinion

         Department One

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, granting a preliminary injunction. A. A. Sanderson, Judge.

         COUNSEL:

         Morrison & Foerster, for Appellants.

         J. J. Scrivner, for Respondents.


         JUDGES: Van Fleet, J. Garoutte, J., and Harrison, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          VAN FLEET, Judge

         Appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction.

         The nature of the present action and the terms of the order appealed from will be found sufficiently stated in Schwarz v. Superior Court , 111 Cal. 106, where the same order was under consideration upon certiorari to review the action of the court below in attempting to punish these appellants for contempt for an alleged violation of its terms. It was there held that the order, in so far as it directed and required the removal of the obnoxious signs, was mandatory in character.

         To the extent that the injunction is mandatory it was erroneously granted. The granting of a mandatory injunction pending the trial, and before the rights of the parties in the subject matter which the injunction is designed to affect have been definitively ascertained by the chancellor, is not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established and it appears that irreparable injury will flow from its refusal. (High on Injunctions, sec. 2; Gardner v. Stroever , 81 Cal. 148.)

         The showing in the record before us is not such as to entitle respondents to have the objectionable signs removed pending the final determination of the rights of the parties in the disputed name. It cannot be determined therefrom what the final judgment as to those rights may or should be upon a trial of the action.

         As to the merely preventive features of the injunction, we cannot say that the showing was insufficient to invoke the discretionary power of the court, and the order in that respect should stand.

         The other questions discussed are such as will more appropriately arise upon a trial on the merits.

         The order is reversed, with directions to the court below to modify its injunction by striking therefrom the requirement for the removal of the signs.


Summaries of

Hagen v. Beth

Supreme Court of California
Sep 22, 1897
118 Cal. 330 (Cal. 1897)
Case details for

Hagen v. Beth

Case Details

Full title:RUDOLF HAGEN et al., Respondents, v. ADOLPH H. BETH et al., Appellants

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Sep 22, 1897

Citations

118 Cal. 330 (Cal. 1897)
50 P. 425

Citing Cases

United Railroads of San Francisco v. Superior Court

" ( Clute v. Superior Court, 155 Cal. 15, [132 Am. St. Rep. 54, 99 P. 362]. See, also, Hagen v. Beth, 118…

Shoemaker v. County of Los Angeles

The granting of a mandatory injunction pending trial "`is not permitted except in extreme cases where the…