Sullivan v. Triunfo Gold & Silver Mining Co.

Citations

• 33 Cal. 385

Syllabus

<p>Injunction Order ex parte.—Where a District Judge, at Chambers, grants an injunction ex parte, under the statute, it virtually becomes the act of the Court, and no less so than if made upon notice, and may be enforced in the same way.</p> <p>Appeal prom Injunction Order.—Section three hundred and forty-seven of the Practico Act, which provides that an appeal may be taken from an order granting or dissolving an injunction,” authorizes an appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting an injunction when made by a District Judge at Chambers ex 2>arte.</p> <p>Idem.—Section three hundred and forty-seven of the Practice Act authorizes an appeal from “ an order granting an injunction ” in the broadest terms, without limit or qualification ; and the right of appeal under it is not limited to orders made on notice, or upon order to show cause. There is nothing in any other portion of the statute that in any way limits the scope of this express provision of the statute.</p> <p>Idem.—The provision of section three hundred and thirty-four of the Practice Act, that authorizes the Judge who granted an injunction-order ex parte to vacate or modify it ex parte, and the provision of section one hundred and eighteen of the same Act, that authorizes a party, restrained by an injunction which has been granted without notice, to apply, upon notice, to the Judge who granted it, or to the Court, to dissolve or modify it, are in nowise inconsistent with the right to appeal without such previous application.</p> <p>Concurrent Remedies.—The right of appeal provided for in section three hundred and forty-seven of the Practice Act, is concurrent with the remedies provided for in sections three hundred and thirty-four and one hundred and eighteen of the same Act.</p> <p>Appeal prom ex parte Injunction Order.—The right of appeal from ex parte orders granting an injunction has been recognized in Martin v. Travers, 7 Cal. 253, and City and Coxmty of San Francisco v. Beideman, 17 Cal. 461, 4