Eureka Lake & Yuba Canal Co. v. Superior Court of Yuba

California Supreme Court Jan 12, 1885 No. No. 9,122Published

Before: Myrick

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the injunction was validly issued, service of process upon the corporation's designated agent was sufficient, and the court maintained jurisdiction to punish for contempt despite the defendant's attempts to evade service.

Issues

Whether an injunction prohibiting specific mining operations violates the code provision against suspending the general business of a corporation without notice.
Whether service of process upon a previously designated agent remains valid when the corporation claims the agent is no longer in its employ.
Whether service of an order to show cause upon a defendant's attorney is sufficient when the defendant's managing agent is actively concealing himself to avoid service.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the granting of the injunction in this case was not in conflict with the section of the code cited.”

“the petitioner had, under the statute of April 1, 1872, designated Cahn as the person upon whom process might be served, and such designation had not been revoked at the time of service.”

“The evident intention of the defendant and its management was to avoid the service of process. We are not disposed, nor are we at liberty, to sanction the carrying of such intention into effect.”

Synopsis

Injunction—Hydraulic Mining—Corporation—Notice of Application.— A corporation whose general, ordinary, and only business is that of mining by the hydraulic process, and of selling water to others to be used for a like purpose, may be temporarily enjoined upon an ex parte application, without notice to it, from depositing or discharging its mining debris in certain streams, or from seUing its water to others to be used for a purpose producing a like result.

Id.—Foreign Corporation—Service of Summons.—Service of summons on a person designated by a foreign corporation as one upon whom process might be served, under the act of April 1, 1872, is a sufficient service on the corporation, so long as such designation remains unrevoked, although the service was made after the adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure, and on a person who was neither the agent, cashier, secretary, or other officer of the corporation.

Id.— Preliminary Injunction—Service of. —A preliminary injunction against a foreign corporation may be served by leaving with the agent designated to receive service of process a copy of the writ, showing the original, and explaining its contents, and delivering to him a copy of the complaint.

Id.—Contempt—Order to Show Cause—Service on Attorney.—An order to show cause why a corporation should not be punished for contempt in violating an injunction, may be served on the attorney for the corporation in the injunction suit, when its managing agents conceal themselves for the purpose of avoiding service.

Superior Court—Judge may Hold Court in another County.—A judge of the Superior Court of one county may hold court in another county at the request of the judge thereof.

Myrick, J. Certiorari, to review the proceedings of the respondent, in adjudging the petitioner guilty of contempt for disobedience of an injunction, and in imposing a fine.

[3141]. The petitioner claims that all of the proceedings are void, under section 531, Code of Civil Procedure, the injunction having been granted without any previous notice to the petitioner. This point was considered by this court in Golden Gate C. H. Co. v. The Superior Court of Yuba County, 65 Cal. 187, and it was there held that the injunction did not suspend the general and ordinary business of the corporation, but only suspended its conduct of mining operations in a particular manner, alleged to injure the plaintiff in the action in which the injunction was issued. In the case before us, the petition states the business of the petitioner to be mining by the hydraulic process, and selling water to others to be used for a like purpose, and that such business constituted the general and ordinary, and only, business of the petitioner. The injunction commanded the petitioner, its officers, agents, superintendents, managers, servants, and employees, to desist and refrain from depositing in, or suffering to flow into, the channel or bed of certain streams or their tributaries any tailings from its hydraulic mines, or any material discharged from said mines, commonly called “mining debris,” and from selling to others, or suffering or permitting others to use, any portion of its waters for the purpose of washing by the hydraulic process the banks or bottoms of any other mine or mining ground into beds or channels of said streams, or their tributaries. For the reasons stated in the opinion above referred to, we are of opinion that the granting of the injunction in this case was not in conflict with the section of the code cited.

2. On the 15th of November, 1872, the petitioner, in compliance with the requirement of the act of April 1, 1872, filed in the office of the secretary of state an instrument designating one Allenburg as the person upon whom process might be served. On the 29th of March, 1880, the petitioner, having removéd its principal place of business from Nevada county to San Francisco, filed in the office of the secretary of state an instrument designating David Gahn, of the latter place, as the person on whom the process might be served. In the action in which the injunction was issued, the summons was served by the sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco, on the 9th of November, 1882, by delivering.a copy of the same, together with a certified copy of the complaint, to the said David Cahn.

Eureka Lake & Yuba Canal Co. v. Superior Court of Yuba

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief