Coolot v. Cent. Pac. R.R.
ANTHONY COOLOT v. THE CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, LELAND STANFORD, COLLIS P. HUNTINGTON, CHARLES CROCKER, MARK HOPKINS, and EDWARD H. MILLER, JR.
- Area
- civil
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
By the Court : .
The preliminary injunction in this case was issued upon the complaint and answer, and affidavits filed on behalf of the respective parties. The affidavits on the part of the plaintiff show that the guaranty was procured by fraud and was given by the Central Pacific Railroad Company without any consideration# and although most of the facts stated in the complaint and the plaintiff’s affidavits, upon which he relies for an injunction, are denied by the defendants’ answer and their affidavit, yet we cannot say that the granting of the injunction under the circumstances appearing in the case. was an abuse of discretion. (See Godey v. Godey, 39 Cal. 167; McCrary v. Brown, 42 Cal. and other cases in this Court.)
Order affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- De Godey v. Godey No. 2,259 · 1870-07-01
Cited by
- Kendall v. Foulks L. A. No. 4749. · 1919-03-20