From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ortman v. Dixon

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1858
9 Cal. 23 (Cal. 1858)



         This was an application to this Court for a writ of mandamus against William T. Barbour, Judge of the Tenth Judicial District, to compel him as such Judge, to issue his writ of attachment against the defendants, for contempt in disobeying an injunction issued by said District Court. This is an agreed case.


          T. B. Reardon, for Plaintiffs.

         JUDGES: Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Terry, C. J., concurring.


          BURNETT, Judge

         Application for mandamus to the Judge of the Yuba District Court.

         This was a chancery suit in which a decree was rendered for plaintiffs, perpetually enjoining the defendants from diverting the waters of Mill Creek. Pending a motion for a new trial, the defendants violated the injunction, and plaintiffs applied for an attachment against them for contempt of Court, which was refused upon the ground that the pending of the motion operated as a suspension of the injunction.

         We think that this was error. Let a peremptory mandamus issue.

Summaries of

Ortman v. Dixon

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1858
9 Cal. 23 (Cal. 1858)
Case details for

Ortman v. Dixon

Case Details

Full title:ORTMAN et al. v. DIXON et al. [1]

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 1, 1858


9 Cal. 23 (Cal. 1858)

Citing Cases

Hennessy v. Superior Court

As was well said in Temple v. Superior Court, 70 Cal. 211. [11 P. 699], 'The court cannot, by holding without…

Heinlen v. Cross

It acted directly without process upon the defendant, and the stay only operated to prevent the collection of…