Mitchell v. Superior Court

[469]

TYLER, P. J.

This is a proceeding to review an order of the superior court adjudging petitioners guilty of contempt for violating a certain injunction.

Petitioner E. Forrest Mitchell is the qualified and acting insurance commissioner of the state of California, and Bernon F. Mitchell is his qualified analyst or deputy. The petition recited E. J. Carroll Co., Ltd., to he a corporation, licensed to act as an insurance broker, and that its license expired on July 1, 1932. Prior to the expiration of the same, the company applied for a renewal thereof, covering the period from the date last mentioned to July 1, 1933. Said application was made under section 633a7 of the Political Code. The application was denied for the reason the insurance commissioner determined, after due investigation and hearing, that the company had been guilty of rebating, contrary to the provisions of section 633b of the Political Code, and for the further reason that it had attempted to place business with a company not authorized to do business in this state, an act condemned under the provisions of section 596 of the Political Code.

Thereafter said corporation filed in the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco an action against said insurance commissioner under section 633a22 of the Political Code. In its complaint said corporation alleged its qualification to receive a license under section 633a7 of said code and prayed that the court order the insurance commissioner to forthwith issue a license to said corporation, the same to be effective until the final determination of the action. Upon the filing of the complaint an order was issued by the court requiring the commissioner to appear and show cause why he should not grant to the company a license as an insurance broker. On the return day the commissioner appeared and filed a demurrer to the complaint, and also an affidavit reciting in detail the reason for the refusal to issue the license for which the company had applied. After a hearing the court issued a mandatory injunction which commanded the commissioner to forthwith issue to the company a license as an insurance broker, said license to remain in full force and effect until the final determination of the action. In addition thereto it also issued an injunction restraining the commissioner from in any man