Crandall v. Woods

6 Cal. 449
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 6 Cal. 449 (Crandall v. Woods) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Crandall v. Woods, 6 Cal. 449 (Cal. 1856).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

When the county judge exercises the power given him by statute of granting an injunction upon a bill filed in the District Court, his act is auxiliary to the jurisdiction of that Court, and must have the same force [452]*452and efficacy for all purposes as if it were the direct act of the latter. Such an order may therefore be appealed from, in the same manner as if made by the District Court.

The appeal in this case being well taken, it is conceded that the answer denies all the equity of the bill, if it has any, and therefore the order was improvidently granted, and is here reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Metropolitan L. Co., Ltd. v. Greenfield
66 P.2d 722 (California Court of Appeal, 1937)
Kendall v. Foulks
179 P. 886 (California Supreme Court, 1919)
Fitchett v. Henley
31 Nev. 326 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1909)
Armstrong v. Paul
1 Nev. 134 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1865)
People ex rel. Wright v. County Judge
27 Cal. 151 (California Supreme Court, 1865)
Hicks v. Michael
15 Cal. 107 (California Supreme Court, 1860)
Bensley v. Mountain Lake Water Co.
2 Cal. Dist. Ct. 96 (San Fran. Dist Ct, 1857)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Cal. 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crandall-v-woods-cal-1856.