People Ex Rel. Bank Commissioners v. Bank of Mendocino County

Good Law
133 Cal. 107·1901 Cal. LEXIS 872·65 P. 124
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 29, 1901S.F. No. 2354.California776 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Smith, J.

Appeal from an order refusing motion of defendant to modify an injunction. The injunction affected by the motion was part of the judgment rendered March 10,1896, in a suit of the people against the defendant corporation, under section 11 of the Bank Commissioners’ Act, as amended March 26,1895. (Stats. 1895, p. 173.) The motion was made on two grounds, namely: the one, “that the judgment, ... by its terms, provides that it be operative only until the further order of the court”; the other, “that the said judgment, in so far as it restrains and enjoins . . . the . . . defendant bank, etc., is not warranted by the law and facts of the said case.” It is claimed by the appellants that the judgment in which the injunction was ordered is “ an interlocutory order, and not a final judgment”; and the motion, with regard to both the grounds specified, proceeds on this assumption. Otherwise the appeal would not lie, or at least could not be sustained; for the time for appealing from the judgment has long since expired, and—assuming it to be final—it was not in the power of the court to modify it. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 939, subds. 1, 3.)

On the other hand, even were the judgment…

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.