Majority
p. 562[No. 4969.] EGBERT JUDSON et al. v. GEORGE K. PORTER et al. The objection to this bill is, that the Nineteenth District Court has no right to enjoin the proceedings in the ejectment suits pending in another district court, and there is no necessity of enjoining the proceedings in the Nineteenth District Court, as it can by order stay the proceedings.
Headnote
Enjoining Pbosecution of an Action.—One District Court cannot enjoin the prosecution of an action pending in another District Court.Appeal from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.
Bill filed in Nineteenth District Court to enjoin the prosecution of two suits pending in the Fourth District Court, city and county of San Francisco, and one pending in the Nineteenth District. Injunction granted on bill, and motion on bill and answer to dissolve. Motion denied, and defendants appealed from the order.
B. S. Brooks, for the Appellants.
W. H. Patterson, for Respondent.
It is well settled that one district court cannot enjoin the prosecution of an action pending in another district court. ( 11 Cal. 76 ; 9 Id. 614; 37 Id. 269; 39 Id. 162; 47 Id. 626.)
Order reversed, and court below directed to dissolve the restraining order.
Cases cited
- Hockstacker v. Levy 11 Cal. 76 p. 562