Summary
In Paddon v. Superior Court, 65 Cal.App. 479 [ 224 P. 474], a writ of prohibition to prevent taking depositions was demanded.
Summary of this case from Stone v. BachOpinion
Civ. No. 4888.
February 1, 1924.
PROCEEDING in Prohibition to review an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Walter Perry Johnson, Judge, restraining the taking of certain depositions.
While proceedings were pending charging petitioner, William Locke Paddon, with contempt of the orders of the trial court directing him to appear and give his deposition in an action in which he was one of the defendants, petitioners sought to take the depositions of certain witnesses. On the day set for the depositions, respondent, superior court, issued a temporary restraining order preventing petitioners from taking the depositions in question, and thereafter continued said temporary restraining order from week to week. By this proceeding in prohibition, petitioners seek a review of said order.
J. L. Smith for Petitioners.
Preston Duncan, W. A. Andrews, C. A. Linn and Myron Harris for Respondents.
[1] It appearing to the court that proceedings were pending charging the petitioner, William Locke Paddon, with contempt of the orders of the trial court at the time the order herein sought to be reviewed was made; and it further appearing that the said William Locke Paddon is the real party in interest herein;
It is ordered that the petition for a writ of prohibition be denied upon the authority of Knoob v. Knoob, 192 Cal. 95 [ 218 P. 568], Soderberg v. Soderberg, 63 Cal.App. 492 [ 219 P. 82], and Weeks v. Superior Court, 187 Cal. 620 [ 203 P. 93].
All the Justices concurred.
A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on February 21, 1924, and an application by petitioners to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on March 31, 1924.
All the Justices concurred.