gno.law

Southern Pacific Co. v. Smith

California Supreme Court · L. A. No. 4382. · 1915-08-13 · Published · 151 P. 426 · 171 Cal. 8 · 1915 Cal. LEXIS 578

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, Petitioner v. T. E. SMITH, and GEORGE FLOURNOY, as Justice of the Peace of the Sixth Judicial Township of the County of Kern, Respondents

Proceeding
appeal
Outcome
other — Squires, and Frank B.
Area
civil
Panel
Frank M. Angellotti (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Angellotti

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.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by