Phelan v. Smith

Cal. District Court

Phelan v. Smith

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 75

DecidedMay 15, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 75 (Phelan v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California District Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Phelan v. Smith, 1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 75 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Hager J.

The injunction in this case was granted in the first place with hesitation. I had limited the writ, so that no injury could result to the defendants, as all parties could have an opportunity to be heard on a motion to dissolve without much delay. And moreover, it was made to appear that the U. S. Circuit Judge, in whose Court the decree of foreclosure had been entered, was absent from the State ; and an action by original bill could not be maintained in a Federal Court for the reason that the parties were residents of this State. Upon these considerations a temporary injunction had been allowed. The parties had been heard before the Court upon a motion to dissolve the injunction. This motion«must prevail. Indeed, the plaintiff’s counsel have seemed to take the fact for granted, that the injunction would not be upheld in this Court.. The injunction is dissolved.

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

Hager J.

The injunction in this case was granted in the first place with hesitation. I had limited the writ, so that no injury could result to the defendants, as all parties could have an opportunity to be heard on a motion to dissolve without much delay. And moreover, it was made to appear that the U. S. Circuit Judge, in whose Court the decree of foreclosure had been entered, was absent from the State ; and an action by original bill could not be maintained in a Federal Court for the reason that the parties were residents of this State. Upon these considerations a temporary injunction had been allowed. The parties had been heard before the Court upon a motion to dissolve the injunction. This motion«must prevail. Indeed, the plaintiff’s counsel have seemed to take the fact for granted, that the injunction would not be upheld in this Court.. The injunction is dissolved.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phelan-v-smith-caldistct-1857.