Ortman v. Dixon
ORTMAN v. DIXON
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Lawrence F. Terry, Albert G. Burnett
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 — Burnettterry
Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring.
Application for mandamus to the Judge of the Tuba District Court.
This was a chancery suit, in which a decree was rendered for plaintiffs, perpetually enjoining the defendants from diverting the waters of Mill Creek. Pending a motion for a new trial, the defendants violated the injunction, and plaintiffs applied for an attachment against them for contempt of Court, which was refused upon the ground that the pending of the motion operated as a suspension of the injunction.
We think that this was error. Let a peremptory mandamus issue.
Cited by
- Hennessy v. Superior Court S. F. No. 11074. · 1924-09-02
- Cahill v. Superior Court of S.F. S.F. No. 3937. · 1904-09-30
- Crocker v. Conrey S.F. No. 3629. · 1903-09-12
- Heinlen v. Cross · 1883-01-16