Ortman v. Dixon

Decided July 1, 1858

California Supreme Court · decided 1858-07-01

Mandamus. This was an application to this Court for a writ of mandamus against William T. Barbour, Judge of the Tenth Judicial District, to compel him as such Judge, to issue his writ of attachment against the defendants, for contempt in disobeying an injunction issued by said District Court. This is an agreed case.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 1924

8 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring.

¶1Application for mandamus to the Judge of the Tuba District Court.

¶2This 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.

¶3We think that this was error. Let a peremptory mandamus issue.