Porter v. Jennings

California Supreme Court Jun 10, 1891 No. No. 13469Published

Before: Garoutte

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying an injunction pendente lite in an action to restrain a sheriff's sale, as the denial effectively rendered the plaintiff's potential success in the underlying suit moot.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying an injunction pendente lite to restrain a sheriff's sale of real property pending a determination of title.
Whether a denial of an injunction that constitutes the principal relief sought is equivalent to a dismissal of the action.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The judgment of the trial court in denying the injunction deprived plaintiff of all benefit of the right to which the law declares he is entitled. It is virtually dismissing the action because defendants deny plaintiff’s right.”

“The injunction prayed for is not merely ancillary to other relief; it is itself the principal relief desired, and its denial is equivalent to a dismissal of the action.”

“The order refusing to grant the injunction should be reversed, and the trial court directed to issue the injunction asked for by plaintiff pending the final determination of the cause upon its merits.”

Synopsis

Injunction — Discretion — Appeal. — An order granting or dissolving an injunction is a matter of discretion with the trial court, and will not bé reviewed by the appellate court except where an abuse of that discretion appears; hut where an abuse of discretion appears, the order will he reversed.

Id. — Restraining Sale under Execution against Grantor — Denial of Equities — Dissolution — Abuse of Discretion.—Injunction is the proper remedy where one claiming to be the owner of a tract of land, purchased in good faith for a valuable consideration, in the actual possession thereof, seeks to prevent its sale under execution against his grantor; and a dissolution of a restraining order in such case does nob follow from an answer denying the equities of the complaint. Such dissolution is an abuse of discretion.

Id.—Temporary Injunction — Object of Suit — Preserving Rights of Plaintiff—Defendant not Prejudiced.—Where the principal relief sought in the action is to obtain an injunction restraining an execution sale, and the denial of a temporary injunction is equivalent to a dismissal of the action, and the granting of it cannot prejudice or imperil the rights of the defendant, the temporary injunction should he granted and continued until the hearing, notwithstanding an answer denying the equities of the complaint.

Id.—Pleading — Answer — Denial of Equities — Information and Belief. —■ Denials in the answer, upon information and belief, are not such denials as will serve as the basis of a motion to dissolve a temporary restraining order on the ground that the equities of the hill are fully denied, by the ans wer.

Garoutte, J. This is an action for a perpetual injunction to restrain Jennings, the sheriff of Santa Cruz County, from selling the land of plaintiff under an execution issued on a judgment in favor of defendant Cummings, against one William N. Cummings.

The complaint was full and complete.

The answer denied plaintiff’s ownership, specifically averring that the deed from the execution debtor Cummings, to one Ketchum was in fact a mortgage, and that the deed from Ketchum to plaintiff conveyed no title.

Upon the filing of the complaint an order was made on defendants to show cause why an injunction should not be granted to stay proceedings pending the final determination of -the suit, and a temporary restraining order was issued.

The 'matter was heard upon the complaint and answer, and upon a decree of the court made in the case of Cummings v. Cummings, which does not appear to be material.

The restraining order was set aside by the court, which was, in effect, a refusal to grant the injunction. (Hides v. Michael, 15 Cal. 109.) From this order denying the application for an injunction pendente lite, plaintiff appeals.

The rule is so well established in this state that an order granting or dissolving an injunction is a matter of discretion with the lower court which this court will not review except where an abuse of that discretion is urged, that a citation of authority upon the question is useless labor.

Applying this well-established principle to the case under examination, can the action of the trial court be sustained?

The plaintiff claims to be the owner of a tract of land, purchased in good faith for a valuable consideration, in the actual possession thereof, and now seeks to prevent a sale under execution against the original grantor.

[443]It is settled law in this state that injunction is the proper remedy in this character of action, and that a dissolution of the restraining order does not follow as a matter of course upon the filing of the answer denying the equities of the complaint.

Conceding that the denials in the answer of defendants are complete and unobjectionable, still it would seem, in the exercise of a sound discretion, the lower court should have held the sale in abeyance until the final disposition of the case upon its merits.

Porter v. Jennings

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief