Southern Pacific Co. v. Smith

California Supreme Court

Southern Pacific Co. v. Smith

151 P. 426, 171 Cal. 8, 1915 Cal. LEXIS 578

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 13, 1915

DocketL. A. No. 4382.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 151 P. 426 (Southern Pacific Co. v. Smith) 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

Southern Pacific Co. v. Smith, 151 P. 426, 171 Cal. 8, 1915 Cal. LEXIS 578 (Cal. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

ANGELLOTTI, C. J.

Regardless of the equities of plaintiff’s application, matters as to which the superior court of Kern County had complete power to provide in its final judgment (City of Pasadena v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. 781, [109 Pac. 620]), this court is satisfied that it must be held, in view of the thoroughly settled rule to that effect, that it has no power to grant the relief sought. The situation is simply that the superior court by final judgment has denied the injunctive relief sought, refusing to make any provision in such judgment by way of injunctive relief pending appeal. Any temporary injunction previously granted ipso facto terminated with the giving of judgment on the merits denying an injunction, unless in some way maintained by express provision in such judgment. It is thoroughly settled by our rulings that to grant any such relief as is here sought would not be relief in aid of our appellate jurisdiction, and that under cur constitutional and statutory provisions we have no original jurisdiction in injunction matters. The view expressed in Hicks v. Michael, 15 Cal. 107, 114, has never been departed from in this regard, and we see no reason to doubt the correctness of those views. The same conclusion was the basis of *9 our denial of a similar application in Platt v. City and County of San Francisco, S. F. No. 5562, made May 9, 1910, in which no opinion was filed.

The application is denied.

Sloss, J., Shaw, J., Lorigan, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

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

ANGELLOTTI, C. J.

Regardless of the equities of plaintiff’s application, matters as to which the superior court of Kern County had complete power to provide in its final judgment (City of Pasadena v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. 781, [109 Pac. 620]), this court is satisfied that it must be held, in view of the thoroughly settled rule to that effect, that it has no power to grant the relief sought. The situation is simply that the superior court by final judgment has denied the injunctive relief sought, refusing to make any provision in such judgment by way of injunctive relief pending appeal. Any temporary injunction previously granted ipso facto terminated with the giving of judgment on the merits denying an injunction, unless in some way maintained by express provision in such judgment. It is thoroughly settled by our rulings that to grant any such relief as is here sought would not be relief in aid of our appellate jurisdiction, and that under cur constitutional and statutory provisions we have no original jurisdiction in injunction matters. The view expressed in Hicks v. Michael, 15 Cal. 107, 114, has never been departed from in this regard, and we see no reason to doubt the correctness of those views. The same conclusion was the basis of *9 our denial of a similar application in Platt v. City and County of San Francisco, S. F. No. 5562, made May 9, 1910, in which no opinion was filed.

The application is denied.

Sloss, J., Shaw, J., Lorigan, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 P. 426, 171 Cal. 8, 1915 Cal. LEXIS 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-pacific-co-v-smith-cal-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack