From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Judson v. Porter

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1877
51 Cal. 562 (Cal. 1877)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.

         Bill filed in Nineteenth District Court to enjoin the prosecution of two suits pending in the Fourth District Court, city and county of San Francisco, and one pending in the Nineteenth District. Injunction granted on bill, and motion on bill and answer to dissolve. Motion denied, and defendants appealed from the order.

         COUNSEL:

         The objection to this bill is, that the Nineteenth District Court has no right to enjoin the proceedings in the ejectment suits pending in another district court, and there is no necessity of enjoining the proceedings in the Nineteenth District Court, as it can by order stay the proceedings.

         B. S. Brooks, for the Appellants.

          W. H. Patterson, for Respondent.


         OPINION          By the Court:

         The resolution of intention, and the order directing the work to be done, provided: " That sidewalks be constructed on Shotwell street, from Fourteenth to Eighteenth streets, where not already constructed; and that the sidewalks thereon be reconstructed where necessary."

         On the authority of Richardson v. Heydenfeldt , 46 Cal. 68; People v. Ladd , 47 Id. 603, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with direction to the court below to enter judgment on the findings in favor of the defendant.


Summaries of

Judson v. Porter

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1877
51 Cal. 562 (Cal. 1877)
Case details for

Judson v. Porter

Case Details

Full title:EGBERT JUDSON et al. v. GEORGE K. PORTER et al.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 1, 1877

Citations

51 Cal. 562 (Cal. 1877)

Citing Cases

Waymire v. San Francisco & San Mateo Railway Co.

One court of equity cannot enjoin the prosecution of another bill of equity or stay proceedings in another…

Wolfe v. Titus

in the opinion of the court there it is observed: "It seems unaccountable that plaintiffs were advised that…