Havemeyer v. Superior Court of San Francisco

Citations

• 87 Cal. 267
• 10 L.R.A. 650
• 25 P. 433
• 1890 Cal. LEXIS 1130

Syllabus

<p>Contempt — Disobedience to Writ op Prohibition — Action op Receiver— Neglect oe Judge. — After service of an alternative writ of prohibition commanding a superior judge, and a receiver appointed by him, to desist from interfering with the possession of property or the conduct of business in the hands of strangers to the suit, claiming title thereto, if the receiver continues to interfere with their possession and the conduct of their business, and attempts to oust them therefrom, and the superior judge neglects his duty to see that the receiver obeys the writ, each is guilty of contempt in disobeying the alternative writ.</p> <p>Id. —Scrambling Possession—Void Order. —Where, prior to the service of the writ, the receiver has only acquired a mixed and scrambling possession of the property, and the order appointing him is void, any further attempts by him to take and hold possession cannot he justified under the plea that possession had been fully taken, and that nothing was done after service of the writ except to preserve the status quo.</p> <p>Id. —Jurisdiction — Good Faith — Technical Contempt — Nominal Fine. — Where the acts of the receiver and of the judge depended for their validity upon the jurisdiction of the judge to appoint the receiver, and they were erroneously advised that the possession of the receiver was lawful and complete, and that he must maintain it, notwithstanding the service of the alternative writ of prohibition, and that the judge could not interfere with or control his acts, pending the hearing of the cause, and each of them acted in good faith upon such advice, and neither intended any disrespect of the court, such good faith, though it cannot wholly relieve them of the contempt of which they are technically guilty, will preclude their being punished otherwise than by a nominal fine.</p>