Mechanics' Foundry v. Ryall
California Supreme Court
Appeal by defendant from the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. DaingerFIELD, J. Action for injunction.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. DaingerFIELD, J. Action for injunction. The Court below, after trial, made the following findings of fact: 1. That the said Mechanics’ Foundry of San Francisco is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of California. 2. That the defendant was, prior to July 23,1879, an employee of plaintiff, and was for good cause discharged, on said date, from plaintiff’s employ. That after his discharge, he daily entered plaintiff’s shop and occupied a certain floor in said shop and…
1Opinion of the Court
Ross, J.:
The complaint in this case does not state facts sufficient to *418warrant the interposition of a court of equity. It charges that the defendant “is a stockholder in said corporation (plaintiff), and was, up to July 23,1879, an employee engaged in,working in the foundry or shop of the plaintiff. That on said date, for good causefdefendant was dismissed front plaint'iff’s employ; that though thus discharged, he has, ever since said date, come daily to plaintiff’s shop or foundry, and insisted upon occupying his place as an employee of said plaintiff, and threatens to continue daily so to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jerome v. RossNew York Court of Chancery · 1823
- Catching v. TerrellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1851
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mechs' Foundry of San Francisco v. RyallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Gardner v. StroeverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Bonamy v. ZenoffNevada Supreme Court · 1961