Estate of Fuller

Good Law
2 Coffey 467
Superior Court of California, County of San FranciscoMarch 12, 1891No. 9747California1,627 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Coffey, J.

This is simply a matter of jurisdiction. This court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this application. No other court is competent to enjoin this court by any such process as this. This is addressed to the parties, and they are responsible for any disobedience of the injunction to the other department. All the court here has to do is to attend to the business before it. Here is an application regular in form, and the hearing is insisted upon. *472 As to the injunction—why, the parties who are enjoined may proceed at their peril in the other department.

The only point is this: The matter is regularly on the calendar, and if the action of this court should be, as suggested, vain, the parties who have procured the injunction against this proceeding will suffer nothing. I am bound to hear all matters that come on here to be heard, when those who make application insist upon their rights. Mr. Lyons is not under the jurisdiction of the other court as attorney in this proceeding. That has been repeatedly held. He has no business as attorney of the minors in that other court. He might have business there if he should be appointed guardian ad litem. Here the application is before…

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.