Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

MEMORANDUM CASE.

[Crim. No. 2660. In Bank.-June 28, 1924.]

In the Matter of the Application of LYNN F. SEILER for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

[1] CONTEMPT-HABEAS CORPUS-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.-Upon this application for a writ of habeas corpus the petitioner is ordered discharged from custody upon the authority of In the Matter of the Application of William G. Brady for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, 65 Cal. App. 345.

PROCEEDING in Habeas Corpus to secure release from custody for contempt of court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Charles D. Wallace for Petitioner.

Asa Keyes, District Attorney, and A. H. Van Cott, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondent.

P. E. Keeler, Spicer, Meacham & Mason, Knight, Lane & Goddard, Clock & McWhitney, Boyle, Clark & Thomas, Edward T. Bishop, County Counsel, and Roy W. Dowds, Deputy County Counsel, Amici Curiae in support of petition.

LENNON, J.-This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus to secure the release of petitioner from detention made upon an order of commitment of the superior court of the county of Los Angeles for contempt of said court. Petitioner was regularly served with a subpoena duces tecum issued in an action pending before the superior court of Los Angeles County, department 28 thereof, purporting to sit in the city of Long Beach, pursuant to an order made by the judge of said department directing the issuance of said subpoena. Petitioner failed and refused to respond to such subpoena and was thereafter brought before the court upon an attachment. Petitioner was for such refusal ad

judged guilty of contempt by said court and sentenced to pay a fine and in default of the payment of such fine was remanded to the custody of the sheriff.

An identical case in point of law and fact was presented to the district court of appeal, second appellate district, and there the court, in an opinion rendered by Mr. Justice Houser, decided adversely to the respondent's contentions made therein. (In the Matter of the Application of William G. Brady for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, 65 Cal. App. 345 [224 Pac. 252].) Every point presented here was considered there and no other or different argument is made here than was made there. We are satisfied with the conclusion reached in the Brady case and are in substantial accord with the reasoning generally upon which that conclusion is based. [1] Upon the authority of that case it is ordered that the petitioner herein be and he is hereby discharged from custody.

Richards, J., Waste, J., Lawlor, J., Seawell, J., Shenk, J., and Myers, C. J., concurred.

INDEX.

(799)

INDEX.

ABANDONMENT. See Attorney's Fees, 4; Contracts, 6-11; Parent
and Child, 1; Workmen's Compensation Act, 13, 14.

ACCIDENT INSURANCE.

1. CONSTRUCTION OF POLICY-EXTENT OF LIABILITY.-Where an accident
insurance policy, insuring an employer against liability for in-
juries sustained by his employees in the course of certain specified
employments, which are set forth in certain "declarations" therein
under the head of "Classification of Operations," contains a pro-
vision that "this agreement shall apply to such injuries so sustained
by reason of the business operations described in said declarations
which for the purpose of this insurance shall include all operations
necessary, incident or appurtenant thereto or connected therewith
whether such operations are conducted at the work places defined
and described in said declarations or elsewhere in connection with
or in relation to such work places," and also contains a provision
that, "The premium is based upon the entire remuneration earned,
during the Policy Period, by all employees of this Employer en-
gaged in the business operations described in said Declarations
together with all operations necessary, incident or appurtenant
thereto," with certain exceptions enumerated, and that, "if any
operations as above defined are undertaken by this Employer but
are not described or rated in said Declarations, this Employer agrees
to pay the premium thereon, at the time of the final adjustment
of the premium in accordance with Condition C hereof, at the
rates and in compliance with the rules, of the Manual of Rates
in use by the Company upon the date of the issue of this policy,"
from a construction of the whole policy, it must be held that
the description in the declarations of classes of occupations in
which the insured might engage, was not intended as limiting the
list of operations, but only as fixing a premium rate applicable
to the particular operations described therein, and that even
though the insured was engaged at the time of injury in work
outside the terms and limitations expressed in said classifications,
the effect was not to take the employer or employee outside the
protection of the policy, but only to require the employer to pay
a different premium than that provided for the particular em-
ployments specified in the declarations-Ocean etc. Corp. Ltd. v.
Industrial Acc. Com., 127.

-

[ocr errors]

2. UNCERTAINTY IN POLICY RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. - Where an
accident insurance policy is uncertain as to what operations were

[blocks in formation]
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »