Prader v. Purkett

Citations

• 13 Cal. 588
• 1859 Cal. LEXIS 207

Syllabus

<p>Even if a Chancellor has no power, under the 116th Section of the Practice Act, to require an undertaking upon the issuance of the restraining order, still, having taken jurisdiction of the general subject of litigation, he has power, aside from the statute, to order such undertaking, or to make any other order in the progress of the case, for the furtherance of the objects of the litigation, and the protection of its subject matter.</p> <p>An undertaking in such case, reciting, that it is made in pursuance of the order of Court requiring a bond in the suit in which a restraining order was already in force, sufficiently expresses a consideration. The order for the bond and the undertaking must be taken together.</p> <p>The pendency of a suit between parties at the time of issuing a restraining order, is sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction to issue the order. And the regularity of its exercise cannot he collaterally impeached.</p> <p>Where there are several obligees in such an undertaking promising to pay “said parties enjoined,” etc. suit may be brought in the name of one alone, if he be beneficially entitled to the fruits of the recovery.</p> <p>Summers v. JS’aris7i, (10 Cal. 350,) affirmed.</p>