Case ID: cal-unrep_3/html/0474-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SHARPSTEIN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHACE v. JENNINGS, Sheriff, et al.
    No. 13,510;
    January 4, 1892.
    28 Pac. 681.
    Injunction—Sale of Lands on Execution.—In an action to restrain the sale of land under execution against plaintiff’s grantor the court should continue the restraining order pending final determination, and it is an abuse of discretion to dissolve it upon the filing of an answer denying the allegations of the bill.
    Injunction—Denials on Information—Dissolution.—Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 437, authorising denials upon information and belief, such denials, while sufficient to raise an issue, will not justify the dissolution of a temporary injunction on the ground that the bill is fully denied by the answer.
    APPEAL from Superior Court, Santa Cruz County; F. J. McCann, Judge.
    Action by one Chace against Jennings, sheriff of Santa Cruz county, and others, for an injunction. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
    A. S. Kittredge for appellant; T. H. Laine and Z. N. Goldsby for respondents.
   SHARPSTEIN, J.

The case is not materially different from Porter v. Jennings, 89 Cal. 440, 26 Pac. 965. As admitted by respondents’ counsel, “it is against the same defendants. The purpose is to restrain the sale of the same premises, threatened to be sold by the defendant Jennings (as sheriff) under the same execution in favor of Mary A. Cummings v. William N. Cummings.” The only difference between that case and this is the party plaintiff. We think that case was correctly decided, and on its authority the order appealed from is reversed, with directions to the court below to issue the injunction as prayed for by plaintiff pending the final determination of the action upon its merits.

We concur: De Haven, J.; McFarland, J.