TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hedges v. Superior Court of Yuba County

ALBERT HEDGES v. SUPERIOR COURT OF YUBA COUNTY

Hedges v. Superior Court of Yuba Cnty., 7 P. 767 (Cal. 1885)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 27, 1885
Docket
No. 9721
Judges
Myrick
Citations
7 P. 76767 Cal. 4051885 Cal. LEXIS 656
Syllabus
Contempt — Sueeiciencv op Affidavit — Violation op Injunction against Cobpobation—Pbohibition.—An affidavit in contempt proceedings for the violation of an injunction restraining a corporation, its officers, agents, superintendents, managers, servants, and employees, from the commission of certain acts, did not state that the persons complained of were officers or servants of the corporation; but it did state that they knew of the issuance, service, and effect of the injunction, and violated it in contempt of the authority of the court. Held, on an application for a writ prohibiting the respondent from proceeding in the matter, that the affidavit was sufficient.
Summary
Application for a writ of prohibition. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Myrick

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Myrick J.

Application for a writ prohibiting the respondent from proceeding in the matter of an alleged contempt committed by the petitioners. An injunction had been issued and served restraining a corporation, its officers, agents, superintendents, managers, servants, and employees. from the commission of certain acts. The affidavit on which the contempt proceedings were based did not in terms state that the petitioners herein were officers, agents, superintendents, managers, servants or employees of the corporation; but it did state that they had full knowledge of the issuance, service, and effect of the injunction, that they worked the mine of the corporation, and that they did the acts complained of in violation of the injunction *406 and in contempt of the authority óf the court issuing it. We cannot presume, for the purposes of issuing the writ prayed for, that the petitioners went upon the ground of the corporation without its authority and committed a trespass, and worked its mine “with a high hand;” but, rather that they went in and worked the mine with the consent and approbation of the owner; that their operations were permitted if not approved and authorized. Tested by the rules of law as to a writ of prohibition, ■we think the affidavit sufficient.

Writ denied.

Morrison, C. J., McKee, J., and McKinstry, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1907: 11912: 11924: 11943: 119072026peak 1907 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ex Parte Landry144 S.W. 962 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912)
  2. Phillips v. Superior Court of Kern Cty.137 P.2d 838 (Cal. 1943)
  3. In re Wood227 P. 908 (Cal. 1924)
  4. State v. Sieber88 P. 313 (Or. 1907)

Most recent

  1. Phillips v. Superior Court of Kern Cty.137 P.2d 838 (Cal. 1943)
  2. In re Wood227 P. 908 (Cal. 1924)
  3. Ex Parte Landry144 S.W. 962 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912)
  4. State v. Sieber88 P. 313 (Or. 1907)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list