Golden Gate Consolidated Hydraulic Mining Co. v. Superior Court
Before: McKinstry
Synopsis
' Weit of Beview—Ex Paete Oedee foe Injunction. —As an appeal lies from an order granting an injunction, such an order made without due notice of the application therefor, cannot he annulled in a proceeding for a writ of review.
Id.—Suspension of Business of Ooepobation. —Where the general and ordinary business of a corporation is “buying and selling mining claims or in working them,” an injunction which restrains the mining operations of the corporation in a particular manner, alleged to he to the injury of others, does not suspend the general and ordinary business of the corporation within the meaning of section 531 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Id. —Seevice of Injunction. —An affidavit of service of an injunction which states that the same was personally served upon the superintendent and managing agent of the corporation, is prima facie evidence of a valid service, although affiant further stated that he was “informed and believes” that the person served was such superintendent and managing agent.
Id.—Beview of Evidence of Seevioe—Jjjbisdiction. —Without deciding that the court will review the evidence as to the service of an injunction when the jurisdiction of the court to.which the writ issues depends upon such evidence, held, that where the evidence is conflicting, and there is evidence tending to prove the fact on which the jurisdiction depends, the determination of the lower court will not he questioned.
Id.—Hotioe. —When the officers and agents of a corporation have actual notice of an injunction against the corporation, they are hound by it, although it was not served.
Id. —Service—Sheriff. —An injunction may be served by any person authorized to serve a summons. Subdivision 8 of section 4176 of the Political Code, which provides that “ the sheriff must serve all process and notices in the manner prescribed .by law,” does not give to or impose upon the sheriff exclusively the duty of serving all process and notices, but requires of him to serve such as are placed in Ms hands, wMch the law commands Mm to serve when addressed or handed to him.
Corporation—Contempt.—A corporation can be punished for contempt in disobeying an injunction.
Id.—Affidavits—Jurisdiction.—The jurisdiction of a court to adjudge a contempt committed out of its presence does not depend upon the form of the affidavit wMch sets the proceeding in motion. When the order to show cause is served, the defendant can appear and answer any contempt alleged against him. The commitment is not based upon the affidavits, but upon evidence introduced on the return day of the order to show cause; and a finding that a contempt was committed will not be reviewed on certiorari.
Id.—Service of Order to Show Cause.—When the officers of a corporation charged with contempt in disobeying a legal order wilfully conceal themselves to avoid service of an order to show cause why it should not be adjudged guilty of a contempt, the court may order that service be made upon its attorney in the action.
McKinstry, J. The return to the writ of review shows that in the action, County of Yuba v. Golden Gate Consolidated Hydraulic Mining Company, an injunction was issued, esc parte, commanding the defendant, its officers, agents, servants, etc., until the further order of the court, “to desist and refrain from depositing or suffering to flow into the channel or bed of the Yuba River, or into the channel or bed of Sucker Flat Ravine, or into the tributary streams, gulches, or ravines which lead into said river or ravine, any of the tailings from defendant’s hydraulic mines, or the earth, sand, clay, sediment, stones, or other material discharged from said mines, commonly called mining debris.” The defendant in that action was by the Superior Court adjudged guilty of three several contempts in [189]violating the injunction order. We are asked to annul the contempt judgments and the orders which preceded them.
It is claimed by petitioner that the injunction is void, because no notice was given petitioner of the application for it. Section 531 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that an injunction, “to suspend the general and ordinary business of a corporation,” cannot be granted “ without due notice of the application therefor to the proper officers or managing agent of the corporation.”
It is obvious that petitioner cannot have the order for the injunction annulled, because he had an appeal from the order granting the injunction. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 963, 1068.)
The point of petitioner is, that inasmuch as the injunction was void, the petitioner, its servants, etc., were not bound to obey it, and the Superior Court had no jurisdiction to punish as for contempt any disobedience of it. But the injunction did not suspend the general and ordinary business of the corporation “ in buying and selling mining claims, or in working them,” but only suspended its conduct of mining operations, in a particular manner alleged to injure the plaintiff in the action in which the injunction ivas issued.
It is further said by petitioner that the injunction was never served on it—the defendant in the action, County of Yuba v. Golden Gate Company—because the person on whom it was served was not an officer or agent of the corporation when the service was made.
The affidavit of service states that the server personally served the injunction on “ W. J. Madden, superintendent and managing agent of said defendant.” The subsequent statement that he was “informed and believes” that Madden was superintendent and managing agent, does not detract from the previous statement. He could know the fact only from information derived from some source. The return was prima fade evidence of the fact. (Rowe v. Table Mountain W. Co. 10 Cal. 441.)
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)