Case ID: cal_9/html/0018-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FREMONT v. MERCED MINING COMPANY.
    When an injunction, granted on an ex parte application, was modified on motion of defendant, without notice to plaintiff, on defendants’ giving bond: Held, that subsequent acts of defendant, in violation of the original injunction, were not in contempt. The remedy of the plaintiff, if there was error in the order modifying the injunction, is by appeal, but he cannot have a mandamus to compel the issuance of attachment for contempt.
    Mandamus.
    Application to this Court for a mandamus to compel the District Court to.issue an attachment for contempt. The facts appear in the opinion of the Court.
    
      
      Heydenfeldt for Plaintiff.
   Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring.

Application for mandamus. The plaintiff commenced his action in the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, and upon his ex parte application, an order was made by the Judge granting an injunction restraining the defendant from working certain quartz-veins. After due service of the injunction, the defendant, without notice to the plaintiff, applied for a modification of the order, which was granted by the Judge, upon the filing of a bond by defendant in a sum specified. After the order was made modifying the order granting the injunction, the defendant went on to work the quartz-veins mentioned, and the plaintiff, upon the proper affidavit, made application to the Judge for an attachment for contempt. This application was refused, and the plaintiff now applies to this Court for a mandamus to compel the Judge of the Court below to issue the attachment, and hear the case of the alleged contempt.

The Judge very properly refused the application for the attachment. The order granting the injuction having been modi.fiod, there was no contempt committed. The Judge had a right to modify the order, under the provisions of section three hundred and thirty-four of the Practice Act. 8 How. Pr. R., 440. If the Judge erred in making the order, the remedy of the plaintiff was by appeal. § 347.

Application denied.