Boyd v. Superior Court
Before: Stephens
STEPHENS, J.,
pro
tem.
An alternative writ of prohibition issued out of this court in the usual form, directing the defendants to desist and refrain from taking further proceedings in the case entitled
W. F. Carpenter et al.
v.
O. E. Boyd et al.,
No. 228593, pending in defendant court until a certain return date upon which defendants were directed to show cause why defendants herein “should not be restrained and prohibited absolutely from any further proceedings in said action.”
This writ was issued upon a petition which alleges that the judge who heard the case in the Superior Court was about to sign findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a judgment based therein wherein a valuation of certain corporate stock was made notwithstanding the fact that the value of such stock was neither the subject of allegations, prayer or proof in the case. The petition also alleges that the above referred to findings of fact and conclusions of law on their face support a personal money judgment against' petitioners and in favor of two certain persons who are plaintiffs in the case for all of the stockholders and not as individuals, and that the referred to proposed judgment was to that effect. That the issue of such stock had never been authorized by the corporation commissioner and was, therefore, illegal and void. That the money judgment is so large that the petitioners can neither pay it nor stay execution thereon by giving a bond on appeal.
While it is not necessary here to go into detail of facts, it should be borne in mind that the Superior Court action was for an accounting against trustees of the affairs of a business enterprise and that the stock referred to was stock of the corporations owning the business and was also in the trust. The complaint in said action also asks that a return of the business and the capital stock be decreed and in the absence of defendants’ ability to do so, that a money judgment be given for the value thereof. After submission of the case the judge caused a minute order to be entered by the clerk, which is in words and figures as follows, to wit:
[35]
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)