Commercial Bank of Spanish America, Ltd. v. Superior Court

[396]

WILBUR, C. J.

This is an application for a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent from proceeding with the trial of B. Leuenberger for contempt of court for refusal to obey an order of the respondent court as follows: “It is Ordered that said witness, B. Leuenberger, be, and he is hereby, commanded and directed, at the resumption of the taking of his deposition as a witness for the plaintiff above named before M. Y. Collins, a Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, to produce for the inspection of plaintiff all correspondence, including telegrams and cablegrams, in the possession of the defendant, had

at any time

by the defendant between its London, San Francisco and Bogota offices, relating to the transaction the subject matter of the above-entitled action.” (Italics ours.)

Petitioners produced all correspondence passing before and during the pendency of the transaction involved in the action, but claimed that correspondence between the agents of the corporation after the transaction was completed was not competent evidence in the case and, therefore, refused to produce the same.

Before passing on the validity of the order to produce the correspondence, we will first consider the remedy invoked by petitioners. If the affidavit filed with the trial court does not state facts sufficient to charge a contempt of court, that court would not have jurisdiction to punish the person therein sought to be charged with contempt.

(Otis

v.

Superior Court,

148 Cal. 129 [82 Pac. 853] ;

People

v.

Latimer,

160 Cal. 716 [117 Pac. 1051] ;

Hotaling

v.

Superior Court,