AI-generated from this judgment's text. It can contain errors and is not the official version.
No AI brief yet. Click to generate.
Majority
p. 211[No. 11583. Department Two. July 26, 1886.] CAMILLO TEMPLE et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Respondents.
Headnote
Contempt—Re-entry on Land after Dispossession. — Under section 1210 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a defendant in an action to recover the possession of land is guilty of contempt if he re-enters thereon after being dispossessed under the judgment rendered therein, notwithstanding the re-entry was made more than five years after the date of the judgment.Id.—Proceeding to Punish por—Mandamus to Compel Hearing.—A writ of mandate lies to compel the Superior Court to hear and determine a proceeding for such a contempt where it refused to hear and has dismissed the proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
Proceeding for a writ of mandate to compel the . Superior Court of Los Angeles County to hear and determine a proceeding to have one Newman, a defendant in an action brought to recover the possession of certain land, adjudged guilty of contempt for re-entering upon the land from which he had been ejected under an exe- . cution issued in the action. The court dismissed the proceeding on the ground that it was barred by section 336 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in not having been commenced within five years after the date of the judgment. The appeal from the order of dismissal is reported supra, p. 210. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Glassell, Smith & Patton, for Petitioners.
J. M. Damron, Wells, Van Dyke & Lee, and Brunson & Wells, for Respondents.
This is an application for a writ of mandate to compel the Superior Court of Los Angelés County, Judge W. A. Cheney presiding, to hear a charge of contempt of court made against one B. Newman, which that court had refused to hear, and has dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
p. 212
We have examined the record, and are of opinion that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court. The facts stated bring the case clearly within section 1210 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and under such circumstances the court cannot, by holding without reason that it has no jurisdiction of the proceeding, divest itself of jurisdiction, and evade the duty of hearing and determining it. The prayer of the petition should be granted, and it is so ordered.
McKee, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.