Laam

Laam v. McLaren

Good Law
1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 394·28 Cal. App. 632·153 P. 985
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 21, 1915Civ. No. 1400.California3,204 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

This is an action to enjoin the defendants from submitting the proposition to a vote of the electors for the recall of plaintiff as supervisor and elect a successor. Upon filing the complaint and giving the bond required by the court, the court issued an order reciting, in part, as follows :

Defendant Peacock appeals from the order.

1. Plaintiff has made a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is not appealable.

In Neumann v. Moretti, 146 Cal. 32 , [ 79 Pac. 512 ], the appeal was from an order refusing to dissolve a temporary injunction and the court said: “The restraining order was an injunction. It required the defendant to refrain from a particular act. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 525.) An appeal lies from an order refusing to dissolve an injunction. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 963, suhd. 2.) ” In Golden Gate Con. H. M. Co. v. Superior Court, 65 Cal. 187 , [ 3 Pac. 628 ], an injunction was issued, ex parte, “commanding the defendant, its officers, agents, servants, etc., until further order of the court, to desist,” etc. This was in effect a restraining order or temporary injunction. The defendant in that action was by the court adjudged guilty of contempt for…

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.