Maier

Maier v. Luce

Good Law
1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 484·61 Cal. App. 552·215 P. 399
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 4, 1923Civ. No. 4157.California2,478 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Houser, J.

In this matter petitioners seek to prohibit the superior court of the state of California, in and for the county of San Diego, and E. A. Luce, as judge thereof, from proceeding with the punishment of one of the petitioners under an order to show cause why he should not be punished for a contempt of said court.

In a suit pending in said court an injunction was sought enjoining and restraining defendants, who are the petitioners herein, from operating under the name of “San Diego Cab Company, ’ ’ as well as from using in their business taxicabs known as “yellow cabs.” On the filing of the complaint the court issued an order to show cause why the defendants should not be so enjoined, and at the same time issued a temporary restraining order, on which the court required the plaintiffs to give, and they did give, an undertaking in the usual form, excepting that instead of reciting that the plaintiffs therein had applied or were about to apply for a restraining order, the bond recited that plaintiffs had applied for an injunction, and the undertaking provided that the sureties therein, “in consideration of the premises and of the issuing of said injunction, do jointly and severally…

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.