Wright v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Feb 21, 1941 No. Civ. 6555Published

Before: Pullen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a superior court which has assumed jurisdiction over the dissolution and liquidation of a partnership has exclusive jurisdiction over those matters, and a court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot enjoin the execution of its orders.

Issues

Whether a superior court may enjoin the execution of a judgment or order issued by another superior court of coordinate jurisdiction.
Whether exclusive jurisdiction over the liquidation and distribution of partnership assets vests in the court that first assumed jurisdiction over the dissolution action.

Disposition. Writ of prohibition issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Superior Court in San Francisco having assumed and exercised jurisdiction over the dissolution of the partnership, and the liquidation and distribution of its assets, that court thereby acquired, and has exclusive jurisdiction over said matters.”

“no proceeding to enjoin the execution of an order or judgment of one court may be brought in a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, but any relief must be sought in the court whose order or command is involved.”

PULLEN, P. J.

By this writ of prohibition petitioners seek to restrain the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Calaveras, from taking any proceedings in an action numbered therein as No. 2826, and now pending in said court.

From the pleadings and exhibits before us it appears that in 1939, petitioners herein, with the exception of Bank of

[182]

America, together with L. A. Morrison, formed a limited partnership for the purpose of engaging in the business of gold dredging under the name of “San Andreas Gold Dredging Company. ’ ’

In May, 1940, Allen J. Wright commenced an action in the Superior Court in San Francisco for the dissolution of the partnership and for the sale and distribution of its assets. All of the other members of the partnership, including L. A. Morrison, answered and joined in the relief sought.

Thereafter, plaintiff therein asked for judgment on the pleadings, and the motion was set for hearing for October 25th. On the day of the hearing of the motion for judgment on the pleadings Morrison asked for and was granted leave to file an amended answer. The allegations of the amended answer were identical with his original answer, except as to the prayer, the amended answer asking that plaintiff take nothing by reason of his complaint. After a hearing, a judgment on the pleadings was granted, and a dissolution of the partnership was ordered, and the assets directed to be sold, the debts and liabilities paid, and the surplus, if any, distributed. It was also provided that the two general partners Allen J. Wright and Charles H. Thurman should proceed to sell the assets to the highest and best bidder, and that notice thereof be given as for the sale of property on execution as provided by section 692 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By proper pleadings it appeared that Morrison had assigned or encumbered a part of his interest to the Bank of America and M. H. Manuel, and to them were to be distributed, out of any share belonging to Morrison, such amounts as their interests appeared at the time of distribution.

Thereafter, Wright and Thurman proceeded to advertise the property for sale for December 12, 1940. On December 11, 1940, Morrison filed a notice of appeal to the District Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, and on the same day applied to the trial judge of the Superior Court in San Francisco for a stay of the sale. The judge refused to consider the matter

Wright v. Superior Court

AI Brief

PULLEN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief