Bruton

Bruton v. Tearle

Good Law
1936 Cal. LEXIS 594·7 Cal. 2d 48·59 P.2d 953·106 A.L.R. 580
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 24, 1936S. F. 15257California3,143 words

Opinion

Opinion

Curtis, J.

The District Court of Appeal when this cause was before it rendered an opinion therein which in part is as follows:

“Appellant contends ‘that said court was without jurisdiction in making the orders of February 28, 1934, March 9,1934, and March 16,1934, and that the showing made by said plaintiff did not entitle him to any of said orders’. We find no merit in this contention. The order of February 28 was the restraining order and order to show cause. The order of March 9 was the order granting injunction. Appellant argues that the trial court was without jurisdiction to issue either the restraining order on February 28 or the order granting injunction on March 9, but we are not called upon to pass upon these questions. These orders were appeal-able orders (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963; 14 Cal. Jur. 294), and no appeal was taken therefrom. The only appeal before us is the appeal from the order of March 16, which was an ‘ Order Appointing Receiver in Aid of Execution ’ and we shall therefore confine our discussion to the points raised with respect to the last-mentioned order.

“In our opinion the trial court had jurisdiction to make the order of March 16 appointing a receiver. Section…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.