Anthony v. Dunlap
8 Cal. 26, 1857 Cal. LEXIS 277
Opinion
This was a bill in equity filed in the Fifth District Court, to enjoin the execution of a judgment obtained in the Sixth District.
We have before decided, that one Court had no power to interfere with the judgments and decrees of another Court of concurrent jurisdiction. The only case in which it will bo allowed, is where the Court in which the action or proceeding is pending, is unable by reason of its jurisdiction to afford the relief sought. Any other rule would lead to inextricable confusion.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Anthony v. Dunlap, 8 Cal. 26, 1857 Cal. LEXIS 277 (Cal. 1857).
8 Cal. 26 (Anthony v. Dunlap) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Untitled Case
N.D. California, 2026
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Kristina Trujillo
C.D. California, 2020
Agustin Benitez v. Western Milling, LLC
E.D. California, 2020
REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CALIF. v. Superior Court
225 Cal. App. 3d 972 (California Court of Appeal, 1990)
Heine Piano Co. v. Bloomer
191 P. 900 (California Supreme Court, 1920)
Lowry v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co.
126 N.E. 223 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1920)
Lutey Bros. v. Jackson
179 P. 459 (Montana Supreme Court, 1919)
Hawkeye Insurance v. Huston
89 N.W. 29 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
Beck v. Fransham
53 P. 96 (Montana Supreme Court, 1898)
Spreckels v. Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co.
49 P. 353 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Lake Bistenbau Lumber Co. v. Mimms
22 So. 730 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1897)
Scott v. Runner
44 N.E. 755 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1896)
Cochrane v. McDonald
5 Coffey 235 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1895)
Guardianship of Murphy
1 Coffey 107 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1885)
Platto v. Deuster
22 Wis. 482 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1868)