Dry Cleaners & Dyers Institute v. Reiss

California Supreme Court Feb 7, 1936 No. S. F. 15496Published

Before: Curtis

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied the petition for a writ of supersedeas, holding that the temporary injunction was prohibitory rather than mandatory, and therefore did not automatically stay upon appeal.

Issues

Whether the temporary injunction requiring defendants to charge minimum prices for dry cleaning services is a mandatory injunction that is automatically stayed upon appeal.
Whether the defendants demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the issuance of a writ of supersedeas.

Disposition. Petition for supersedeas denied; temporary stay dissolved.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“By its terms the defendants are not required to perform any act whatever. They may sit by and do nothing and permit their plant to remain idle.”

“An order or decree restraining the further continuance of an existing condition does not take on the character of a mandatory injunction merely because it enjoins the defendants from continuing to do the forbidden acts.”

“The purpose of the writ of supersedeas is to maintain the subject of the action in status quo until the final determination of the appeal, in order that the appellant may not lose the fruits of a meritorious appeal.”

CURTIS, J.

In this action the court, upon the filing of the complaint herein, issued its order directed to the defendants to appear in said court and show cause why an injunction should not be issued restraining them “from doing, advertising to do, and from offering to do or from selling any

[308]

dry cleaning service at retail less than the” minimum price set out in a schedule of prices set forth in said complaint. In response to said order said defendants appeared, and a hearing was had upon the application of plaintiff for a temporary injunction directed to defendants restraining them during the pendency of this action from doing any of the acts enumerated in said order to show cause mentioned above, and at the conclusion of said hearing, and as a result thereof, the

court

directed that a

temporary

injunction issue as prayed for in its said complaint. From this order the defendants have appealed. The trial court threatenes to enforce said injunction by contempt proceedings against the defendants, and as a result of said threatened proceedings the defendants are now before this court asking for a writ of

supersedeas

staying the enforcement of said temporary injunction.

The first ground upon which the defendants based their right to said writ is that the injunction issued by the court is a mandatory injunction and therefore' an appeal therefrom automatically stays its execution. As we have seen, the injunction restrains the defendants from charging for any dry cleaning service performed by them less than the minimum price fixed by said schedule. Defendants construe this mandate of the court as requiring them to carry on their business as dry cleaners and charge for the service rendered by them the minimum price fixed as aforesaid and therefore that such a mandate is a mandatory injunction which requires them to do an affirmative act. We cannot agree with defendants in the interpretation of the language of said order of injunction. By its terms the defendants are not required to perform any act whatever. They may sit by and do nothing and permit their plant to remain idle. The only requirement that the injunction lays upon them is that if they do engage in business as dry cleaners they shall not charge for their work a price less than the schedule of prices fixed in said schedule.

Dry Cleaners & Dyers Institute v. Reiss

AI Brief

CURTIS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief