Case ID: cal-app_65/html/0479-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Civ. No. 4888.
    First Appellate District, Division Two.
    February 1, 1924.]
    WILLIAM LOCKE PADDON et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Respondents.
    
       Contempt—Status op Party—Eight to Review Other Orders. A petition for a writ of prohibition to review an order of the superior court restraining a defendant in an action from taking certain depositions will be denied where proceedings are pending charging said defendant with contempt for refusing to appear in obedience to a subpoena and give his deposition in said action.
    PROCEEDING in Prohibition to review an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Walter Perry Johnson, Judge, restraining the taking of certain depositions.
    While proceedings were pending charging petitioner, William Locke Paddon, with contempt of the orders of the trial court directing him to appear and give his deposition in an action in which he was one of the defendants, petitioners sought to take the depositions of certain witnesses. On the day set for the depositions, respondent, superior court, issued a temporary restraining order preventing petitioners from taking the depositions in question, and thereafter continued said temporary restraining order from week to week. By this proceeding in prohibition, petitioners seek a review of said order.
    J. L. Smith for Petitioners.
    Preston & Duncan, W. A. Andrews, C. A. Linn and Myron Harris for Respondents.
   THE COURT.

It appearing to the court that proceedings were pending charging the petitioner, William Locke Paddon, with contempt of the orders of the trial court at the time the order herein sought to be reviewed was made; and it further appearing that the said William Locke Paddon is the real party in interest herein;

It is ordered that the petition for a writ of prohibition be denied upon the authority of Knoob v. Knoob, 192 Cal. 95 [218 Pac. 568], Soderberg v. Soderberg, 63 Cal. App. 492 [219 Pac. 82], and Weeks v. Superior Court, 187 Cal. 620 [203 Pac. 93].

All the Justices concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on February 21, 1924, and an application by petitioners to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on March 31, 1924.

All the Justices concurred.