Legal Opinion

Rohrer v. Babcock

California Supreme Court

Decided August 26, 1896No. Sac. No. 175PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Siskiyou County refusing to dissolve an injunction. J. S. Beard, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Britt, C.

The court below denied defendant’s motion—heard on the plaintiff’s complaint alone—to dissolve a preliminary injunction restraining defendant, during the pendency of the action, from “ removing or molesting” certain fifty tons of hay, which same was grown and stacked, it seems, on land forming part of the estate of plaintiff’s testator, and the question is whether sufficient facts are stated in the complaint to justify the issuance of the writ. It is there alleged, among other matters, that plaintiff, as executrix, is the-owner of the hay, and that defendant, without right, has…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mechs' Foundry of San Francisco v. RyallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Hicks v. ComptonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  3. McDonald v. BayneNew York Supreme Court · 1890
  4. West v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. St. James Church of Christ Holiness v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  2. Franklin & Franklin v. 7-Eleven Owners for Fair FranchisingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  3. Rohrer v. BabcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API