Ortman v. Dixon

9 Cal. 23
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1858·Published·Cited by 8 cases

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

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

9 Cal. 23 (Ortman v. Dixon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hennessy v. Superior Court
228 P. 862 (California Supreme Court, 1924)
Wilkinson v. Dunkley-Williams Co.
104 N.W. 772 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1905)
Cahill v. Superior Court of S.F.
78 P. 467 (California Supreme Court, 1904)
Crocker v. Conrey
73 P. 1006 (California Supreme Court, 1903)
Montgomery v. Palmer
59 N.W. 148 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1894)
State ex rel. Millett v. Field
37 Mo. App. 83 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1889)
State ex rel. Thatcher v. Horner
16 Mo. App. 191 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1884)
Heinlen v. Cross
63 Cal. 44 (California Supreme Court, 1883)