Agricultural Prorate Commission v. Superior Court

PULLEN, P. J. This proceeding arises under a statute creating the Agricultural Prorate Commission (Stats. 1933, chap. 754, and amended, Stats. 1935, chaps. 471 and 743, and chap. 6, Ex. Sess. 1938.)

An application was made to this court for a peremptory writ of prohibition to restrain the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Sonoma, and the respondent judges thereof, from taking any further proceedings with respect to a temporary restraining order and [520]threatened preliminary injunction in an action brought by Dewey F. Beldocchi, individually, and as the president of the Sonoma Dry Wine Growers Protective Association, a voluntary association, against the applicants herein.

Upon the filing of'the petition this court issued an alternative writ of prohibition, and the matter now comes before us upon the application for a peremptory writ after hearing on the return of the alternative writ.

On June 6, 1938, a petition was filed with the Agricultural Prorate Commission requesting an election, under the provisions of the Prorate Act in the grape-producing areas of California, to determine whether or not. there should be instituted a prorated marketing program for grapes produced in this state. After a hearing an election was ordered by the Agricultural Prorate Commission, which was held July 29, 1938. After a canvass of the votes on August 8, 1938, and pursuant to the petition, the commission established Pro-ration Zone Number Two, approved a detailed marketing plan for the zone, and appointed a program committee to manage the affairs thereof. This committee met and organized, and determined the method, manner and extent of proration, appointed C. J. Carey as zone agent, and fixed September 1, 1938, as the date for the commencement of the program.

This program briefly provided that 45 per cent of all crushing grapes were surplus and were to be delivered to a surplus pool to be converted to brandy and alcohol, under the provisions of a government loan; the remaining 55 per cent of each of the producers of grapes were free tonnage to be disposed of by the producer as he saw fit.

The applicants, in seeking this writ of prohibition, urge three grounds: First, that the temporary injunction, as authorized by the trial court, is in excess of its jurisdiction in that it is based upon issues of fact as to the organization of the grape proration zone, which facts are not cognizable by the respondent court in the present action. Secondly, that the temporary injunction authorized by respondent court is in excess of its jurisdiction in that it attempts to protect the plaintiff and other unnamed persons from a lawful enforcement of a statute, in violation of the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 526 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and subdi