Stonaker v. Superior Court

255 P.2d 857, 117 Cal. App. 2d 292, 1953 Cal. App. LEXIS 1810
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedApril 13, 1953
DocketCiv. No. 19427
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 P.2d 857 (Stonaker v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stonaker v. Superior Court, 255 P.2d 857, 117 Cal. App. 2d 292, 1953 Cal. App. LEXIS 1810 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953).

Opinion

WOOD (Parker), J.

Proceeding in certiorari to annul orders of the superior court adjudging petitioners, guilty of contempt of court for violation of an injunction.

On January 5, 1950, Byron Feebler and Ethel M. Feebler obtained judgment for $10,722.98, as damages for malicious prosecution, against petitioners herein J. M. Danziger and Edith W. Danziger. That judgment was also against one Hutchinson, but on appeal the judgment was reversed as to him. (Peebler v. Danziger, 104 Cal.App.2d 614 [232 P.2d 301].) Petitioners herein Stanley S. Stonaker and Melville E. Farmer were not parties in said action.

On October 8, 1951, the sheriff sold to the Peeblers at execution sale (under a writ of execution issued upon said judgment) all the right, title and interest of J. M. Danziger and Edith W. Danziger in certain cemetery property. (Hereinafter more particularly described.)

On November 15, 1951, Byron Feebler filed his affidavit for an order requiring said Danzigers, Hutchinson, Stonaker and Farmer, doing business as Graceland, a corporation, to show cause why they should not be enjoined from permitting interments in said cemetery property during the period for redemption of the property after said execution sale. On November 29, 1951, an order to show cause was issued requiring said persons, except Farmer, to show such cause on December 17, 1951. On December 14th, the attorneys for the Peeblers and Attorney Rose, representing the Danzigers and Stonaker, stipulated in writing (1) that Attorney Rose thereby entered a general appearance for the Danzigers and [294]*294Stonaker, and (2) that the hearing on the order as to the Danzigers and Stonaker be continued to January 4, 1952. The order to show cause was served on Hutchinson but he did not appear on said December 17th, and an injunction, as prayed for in the affidavit of Byron Feebler, was granted by Judge Swain as to Hutchinson upon the filing of a $500 bond.

The order to show cause came on for hearing on January 4th before Judge Fatrosso, and said Danzigers and Stonaker filed written objections to the jurisdiction of the court to hear said order to show cause. No affidavit, in reply to the affidavit of Byron Feebler, was filed, and no evidence in addition to the Feebler affidavit was introduced at the hearing on the order to show cause. The attorney for the Danzigers and Stonaker called the judge’s attention to the objections which had been filed. The matter was then submitted for decision.

On January 8th, the following minute order was made: “Order to show cause re preliminary injunction, having been heretofore submitted January 4, 1952, the court now orders: Injunction is ordered restraining defendants, their and each of their servants, agents and employees from interring any bodies in any portion of the property sold upon execution issued upon the judgment lien not previously sold for burial purposes to third persons. In other respects, application is denied. Attorney for plaintiff is to prepare a formal order.”

On January 22, 1952, the judge made the formal injunction order which provided: “It Is Hereby Ordered, that the said Edith W. Danziger and J. M. Danziger, the agents, servants and employees of them or either of them, including Stanley S. Stonaker and Frances A. Stonaker, are enjoined and restrained either directly or indirectly from interring or permitting the interment of any bodies in any portion of the following described property situated in the County of Los Angeles . . . [here is legal description by metes and bounds of certain real property] not sold for burial purposes to third persons previous to October 8, 1951. Dated : January 22, 1952.”

A copy of said injunction was served on February 8, 1952, on each of the following named persons: J. M. Danziger, Edith W. Danziger and Stanley S. Stonaker. A copy thereof was served on Melville E. Farmer on February 20, 1952.

On May 1, 1952, Byron Feebler filed his affidavit for an order requiring the Danzigers, Stonaker and Farmer to show [295]*295cause why they should not be adjudged to be in contempt of court by reason of violation of said injunction. The affidavit stated that said injunction (containing said provision herein-above recited) had been duly made on said January 22, 1952; copies of the injunction were served on the Danzigers, Stonaker and Farmer on certain dates (as hereinabove stated); affiant is informed and believes and therefore alleges that said Farmer is, and since said January 22d has been an agent and employee of “Edith W. Danziger and/or J. M. Danziger”; since said January 22d the affiant has seen Farmer on the premises many times; since said date the Danzigers, Stonaker and Farmer have been in charge of and have supervised all cemetery operations on said premises; said persons interred and permitted the interment of certain bodies (the names of the decedents being stated) in said real property on the following dates in 1952: February 15, 21, 28, March 14, 17, 20, 22 and 27; affiant is informed and believes and therefore alleges that none of the burial spaces in which said bodies were interred was sold previous to October 8, 1951; that a person who purchased burial space for the burial on February 15th (burial of Mr. Huntley) told affiant that she came to affiant’s office to purchase a space but no one was there and she went to the adjoining property (which is the cemetery property involved herein) and purchased the burial space; that the purchaser of said space also stated that the purchase was made after October 8, 1951, and that Farmer and Stonaker both participated in said interment; Farmer supervised the burial of Mr. Chamberlain on February 21st, and Mrs. Chamberlain told affiant that she bought that grave after October 8, 1951; after October 8, 1951, certain persons visited affiant and asked about the purchase of a grave for the interment on February 28th (Mr. Tedlock); Farmer supervised the interment on March 14th (Mrs. McGregor); before said interment of March 17th (Mr. Lloyd) affiant received a telephone call from a person who asked the price of a burial space in affiant’s cemetery for the burial of said decedent; Mr. and Mrs. Schoonover, the parents of the person who was buried on March 20th, told affiant on the day after the funeral that they had contracted for the grave and for five other graves after October 8, 1951; a person told affiant that she purchased a grave for the interment on March 22d (Mr. Laird) after October 8, 1951; Stonaker supervised the interment on March 27th (Mr. Sharp—the date of interment was changed, in a later affidavit, to March 28th); and affiant is [296]*296informed and believes and therefore alleges that all the acts of said persons, Danzigers, Stonaker and Farmer, described in said affidavit, were done with the knowledge and consent of each and all of said persons and at the direction of each and all of them.

On May 1, 1952, an order was made requiring the Danzigers, Stonaker and Farmer to show cause why they should not be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for disobeying said injunction of January 22d, which injunction and disobedience are described in the affidavit of Byron Feebler. It was further ordered therein that a copy of said affidavit, attached to said order, should be served on each of said persons.

J. M.

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

Related

Martin v. Superior Court
199 Cal. App. 2d 730 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 P.2d 857, 117 Cal. App. 2d 292, 1953 Cal. App. LEXIS 1810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stonaker-v-superior-court-calctapp-1953.