Tattenham v. Superior Court of S.F.

California Supreme Court

Tattenham v. Superior Court of S.F.

155 Cal. 205

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 16, 1909

DocketS. F. No. 5195

StatusPublished

This text of 155 Cal. 205 (Tattenham v. Superior Court of S.F.) 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

Tattenham v. Superior Court of S.F., 155 Cal. 205 (Cal. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is a petition for the writ of certiorari. It is alleged that the petitioners have been enjoined in an action to which they were not parties, and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the court granting the injunction. If they can appeal it is conceded they have no right to the writ, and there is no doubt that they can appeal by making themselves parties in the manner pointed out in Elliott v. Superior Court, 144 Cal. 509, [103 Am. St. Rep. 102, 77 Pac. 1109].

Writ denied.

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

THE COURT.

This is a petition for the writ of certiorari. It is alleged that the petitioners have been enjoined in an action to which they were not parties, and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the court granting the injunction. If they can appeal it is conceded they have no right to the writ, and there is no doubt that they can appeal by making themselves parties in the manner pointed out in Elliott v. Superior Court, 144 Cal. 509, [103 Am. St. Rep. 102, 77 Pac. 1109].

Writ denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 Cal. 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tattenham-v-superior-court-of-sf-cal-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack