Gardner v. Perkins

California Supreme Court

Gardner v. Perkins

9 Cal. 553

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1858

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 9 Cal. 553 (Gardner v. Perkins) 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

Gardner v. Perkins, 9 Cal. 553 (Cal. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

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

Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Cal. 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-perkins-cal-1858.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack