James King of WM. v. Hall
Before: Heydenfeldt
Synopsis
An action may be brought by one person against another, for the purpose of determining an adverse claim which the latter makes against the former for money or property, upon an alleged obligation.
But this does not deprive the latter of his right of aclion, otherwise the remedies of arrest and attachment would be virtually denied.
An order of injunction, whereby the bringing of an action is restrained, will be • reversed, notwithstanding- an injunction bond has been given.
Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.
Tne right of the plaintiff to bring his action and test the claim made against him, is very clear under the provision of the Practice Act.
Bnt there is nothing therein which can warrant the inference, that defendants are to be deprived of their right of action. Nor upon any principle ought it to be permitted ; for if it was, the defendants would be deprived of the remedies of arrest and attachment, either of which in a proper case, they may resort to. It is no answer to say that an injunction bond has been given. The recovery upon that might possibly be very limited, and at any rate, would put the parties to the cost and delay of another action.
Order of injunction is reversed, and the injunction dissolved.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)