Spreckels

Spreckels v. Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co.

Good Law
117 Cal. 377·1897 Cal. LEXIS 670·49 P. 353
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 24, 1897S. F. No. 607California1,101 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to dissolve a temporary injunction restraining the corporate defendant from further prosecuting an action already commenced by said defendant against the plaintiff in the courts of the Republic of Hawaii, and to prevent the other defendants, as directors of the corporate defendant, from furthering the prosecution of said action.

Defendants moved to dissolve the injunction upon the complaint without answer or counter-affidavit. They contend: 1. That the complaint does not state a cause of action; and 2. That the courts of this state cannot restrain residents within the state from prosecuting an action already pending before the injunction suit was commenced, except to prevent a multiplicity of suits, and the injunction is not sought for that purpose here.

It is evident that the second point is included in the first. There is really no question as to the power of the court, although appellant’s counsel seem to so regard it, and in doing so have, I think, greatly weakened their position. The courts of this state have the same power to restrain persons within the state from prosecuting actions in either domestic or foreign jurisdictions which…

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.