Case ID: cal_171/html/0008-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ANGELLOTTI, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[L. A. No. 4382.
    In Bank.
    August 13, 1915.]
    SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, Petitioner v. T. E. SMITH, and GEORGE FLOURNOY, as Justice of the Peace of the Sixth Judicial Township of the County of Kern, Respondents.
    Appeal from Judgment Refusing Injunctive Relief—Supreme Court cannot Give Relief by Supbp-Sedeas.—Where the superior court by its final judgment has denied the injunctive relief sought, refusing to make any provision in such judgment by way of injunctive relief pending appeal, the supreme court has no power, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, t'o grant such relief by way of supersedeas.
    
    APPLICATION for a Writ of Supersedeas.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Guy V. Shoup, Henley C. Booth, George D. Squires, and Frank B. Austin, for Petitioner.
   ANGELLOTTI, C. J.

Regardless of the equities of plaintiff’s application, matters as to which the superior court of Kern County had complete power to provide in its final judgment (City of Pasadena v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. 781, [109 Pac. 620]), this court is satisfied that it must be held, in view of the thoroughly settled rule to that effect, that it has no power to grant the relief sought. The situation is simply that the superior court by final judgment has denied the injunctive relief sought, refusing to make any provision in such judgment by way of injunctive relief pending appeal. Any temporary injunction previously granted ipso facto terminated with the giving of judgment on the merits denying an injunction, unless in some way maintained by express provision in such judgment. It is thoroughly settled by our rulings that to grant any such relief as is here sought would not be relief in aid of our appellate jurisdiction, and that under cur constitutional and statutory provisions we have no original jurisdiction in injunction matters. The view expressed in Hicks v. Michael, 15 Cal. 107, 114, has never been departed from in this regard, and we see no reason to doubt the correctness of those views. The same conclusion was the basis of our denial of a similar application in Platt v. City and County of San Francisco, S. F. No. 5562, made May 9, 1910, in which no opinion was filed.

The application is denied.

Sloss, J., Shaw, J., Lorigan, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.