History
  • No items yet
midpage
Parrott v. Floyd
54 Cal. 534
Cal.
1880
Check Treatment
Department No. 1, Ross, J.:

Upon the filing of the complaint in this -action, a preliminary injunction was issued. The defendants answered, denying all of the equities of the complaint, and afterward moved to dissolve the injunction, basing the motion upon the complaint, answer, and affidavits. At the hearing, the plaintiff filed counter affidavits. The affidavits filed by plaintiff supported some of the averments of the complaint, and those filed by defendants supported some of the denials of the answer. The Court below, after full hearing and consideration, made an order dissolving the injunction, and from that order this appeal is taken.

Inasmuch as the dissolution or continuing in force of a preliminary injunction is a matter largely within the judicial discretion of the Court below, the settled rule in such cases is, that this Court will not interfere with the action of the lower Court, unless there has been an abuse of discretion. (Rogers v. Tenant, 45 Cal. 186; McCreery v. Brown, 42 Id. 457; Godey v. Godey, 39 Id. 166.)

After a careful examination of the record in this cause, we discover no abuse of discretion in the dissolution of the preliminary injunction. The order is therefore affirmed.

McKinstry, J., and, McKee, J., concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: Parrott v. Floyd
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 1, 1880
Citation: 54 Cal. 534
Docket Number: No. 6,043
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.