Summary
In Wollenshlager v. Riegel, 186 Cal. 622 [ 200 P. 726], the appellants petitioned for a supersedeas in an action in which it was sought in the lower court to procure an injunction to stay an execution sale and in which the injunction had been denied in the lower court.
Summary of this case from Dysart v. ClarkOpinion
L. A. No. 7009.
August 4, 1921.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Supersedeas. Denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
John B. Haas for Appellants.
The petition of appellants for a supersedeas shows that the action in the court below was to procure an injunction to stay an execution sale. The injunction was refused. Appellants ask a supersedeas to stay the execution which they sought to have enjoined in the court below. The effect would be that this court would grant the injunction which the court below refused to grant. [1] It is well established that this court is without power to exercise original jurisdiction of this character. ( Napa etc. Co. v. Calistoga etc. Co., 174 Cal. 411, [ 163 P. 497]; Hicks v. Michael, 15 Cal. 109.)
The application for a supersedeas is denied.