Gardner v. Perkins
9 Cal. 553
Opinion
Where the motion is made upon hill and answer alone, the general rule is to dissolve the injunction, if the answer denies all the equities of the bill. (Hoffman v. Livingston, 1 Johns. C., 211; Livingston v. Livingston, 4 Paige, 111.) There are exceptions to the rule, but they depend upon the special circumstances of the particular cases. (Dean v. Coddington, 2 Johns. C., [554]*554202.) There is nothing disclosed in the record which should take the present case from its operation.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gardner v. Perkins, 9 Cal. 553 (Cal. 1858).
9 Cal. 553 (Gardner v. Perkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lady Bryan Gold & Silver Mining Co. v. Lady Bryan Mining Co.
4 Nev. 414 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1868)
Real Del Monte Consolidated Gold & Silver Mining Co. v. Pond Gold & Silver Mining Co.
23 Cal. 82 (California Supreme Court, 1863)
Burnett v. Whitesides
13 Cal. 156 (California Supreme Court, 1859)