Newport v. Superior Court

WILBUR, C. J.

The petitioners have applied for a writ of review of the proceedings by the respondent court resulting in an adjudication of contempt of court against the petitioners. An order was made requiring respondents to show cause why such writ should not issue, and in response to such order the respondents have demurred to the petition.

The entire record is set up in the petition, and it appears therefrom the petitioners were adjudged guilty of contempt of court because of the commencement of an action alleging violation of the injunctive provisions of a judgment rendered in the action of

Plato

v.

Newport.

The provision of the judgment in the suit to quiet title

(Plato

v.

Newport)

contained the following injunctive provision:

“ . . .

and all adverse claims of each and all of said defendants in or to said land, or in or to any part thereof, are invalid and groundless, and that the said defendants are and each of them is perpetually enjoined and restrained from setting up the same.”

It is unnecessary in this opinion to state fully the nature of the action instituted by the petitioners herein, which, it is claimed, violated the terms of such injunctive order, for the reason that such facts are fully stated in our decision in

Newport

v.

Hatton

filed herewith

(Newport

v.

Hatton,

66 Cal. Dec. 351).

The action instituted by the petitioners herein, as we view it, is an action which fully recognizes the decision of the superior court in the suit of

Plato

v.

Newport,