Hess v. Winder

34 Cal. 270
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 34 Cal. 270 (Hess v. Winder) 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
Hess v. Winder, 34 Cal. 270 (Cal. 1867).

Opinion

By the Court, Rhodes, J.:

' The learned Judge of the Court below was of the opinion that this was a proper case for an injunction, on the ground that the title to the mining ground is in controversy between the parties, and that the property should be preserved pending the litigation—and such is the doctrine repeatedly announced by this Court—but that, as this Court were of opinion that upon the record before them (See 30 Cal. 349) the plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment, an injunction should not now be granted or continued except upon a showing sufficient to have given the plaintiffs a new trial, had the verdict been for the defendants. We do not agree with this view, as to the effect to .be attributed to the decision of this Court. The decision was not that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief upon the facts stated in their complaint, but only that upon the evidence contained in the [273]*273statement, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover. The statement has no office to perform on the new trial. Perhaps it did not contain all the evidence given by the plaintiffs to prove title, and if it did they may, on the new trial, offer other or further evidence.

When the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial, it was returned to that Court for a trial upon the issues, and it stood in the same attitude, in all respects, as before the former trial. If the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction before the former trial, and the injunction was ordered, they were entitled to retain it, upon the cause being remanded for a new trial.

Order modifying the injunction reversed.

Mr. Justice Shafter expressed no opinion.

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

Related

City of Oakland v. Superior Court
136 Cal. App. 3d 565 (California Court of Appeal, 1982)
Thornton v. Stevenson
325 P.2d 117 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
Miller v. Scoggin
189 P.2d 693 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1948)
Cosme v. Márquez
49 P.R. 764 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1936)
Concepción Cosme v. Márquez
49 P.R. Dec. 783 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1936)
Independent Irr. Co., Ltd. v. Baldwin
252 P. 489 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1926)
Washington Water Power Co. v. Crane
233 P. 878 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1925)
Whalen v. Smith
125 P. 904 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
Safford v. Flemming
89 P. 827 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1907)
Lambert v. Haskell
22 P. 327 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Hunt v. Steese
17 P. 920 (California Supreme Court, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 Cal. 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hess-v-winder-cal-1867.