Gelston v. Whitesides

3 Cal. 309
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 3 Cal. 309 (Gelston v. Whitesides) 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
Gelston v. Whitesides, 3 Cal. 309 (Cal. 1853).

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court. Wells, Justice, concurred.

Damages may be recovered on an injunction bond, when the injunction has been improperly sued out; and where an injunction is dissolved, the judgment of dissolution is conclusive ; and in a suit upon the bond, the only question is the amount of damages sustained. But where an injunction is dissolved, and the suit in which it issued is dismissed, by the action of the party who obtained it, it is no admission that the injunction was improperly sued out. It evinces, at least, but an unwillingness further to prosecute the writ. When, in such a case, therefore, a suit is brought on the injunction bond, it is necessary, in order to maintain the action, that it should be shown that there was no proper cause for the injunction.

The court therefore erred, in instructing the jury that the issue should be narrowed exclusively to the question of damages.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

Related

Meriwether v. Lowndes County
7 So. 198 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1889)
Dowling v. Polack
18 Cal. 625 (California Supreme Court, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Cal. 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gelston-v-whitesides-cal-1853.