Ortman v. Dixon

California Supreme Court

Ortman v. Dixon

9 Cal. 23

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1858

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 9 Cal. 23 (Ortman v. Dixon) 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

Ortman v. Dixon, 9 Cal. 23 (Cal. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring.

Application for mandamus to the Judge of the Tuba District Court.

This was a chancery suit, in which a decree was rendered for plaintiffs, perpetually enjoining the defendants from diverting the waters of Mill Creek. Pending a motion for a new trial, the defendants violated the injunction, and plaintiffs applied for an attachment against them for contempt of Court, which was refused upon the ground that the pending of the motion operated as a suspension of the injunction.

We think that this was error. Let a peremptory mandamus issue.

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

Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring.

Application for mandamus to the Judge of the Tuba District Court.

This was a chancery suit, in which a decree was rendered for plaintiffs, perpetually enjoining the defendants from diverting the waters of Mill Creek. Pending a motion for a new trial, the defendants violated the injunction, and plaintiffs applied for an attachment against them for contempt of Court, which was refused upon the ground that the pending of the motion operated as a suspension of the injunction.

We think that this was error. Let a peremptory mandamus issue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Cal. 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortman-v-dixon-cal-1858.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack