REPORTS OF CASES DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. [Civ. No. 618. Third Appellate District.-July 10, 1909.] CHARLES LANGE et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT, etc., for the County of Solano, et al., Respondents. PROHIBITION-JUDGMENT FOR CONTEMPT-VIOLATION OF INJUNCTIONREMEDY BY APPEAL FROM INJUNCTIVE ORDER.-A writ of prohibition will not lie to restrain the execution of a judgment for contempt for the violation of an injunction, where the court did not exceed its jurisdiction in granting the injunction, or in its judgment for contempt for the violation thereof, and it appears that defendant had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal from the order granting the injunction. LD.-JURISDICTION TO GRANT INJUNCTION PENDING SUIT-SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT AND PROOF.-The jurisdiction of the court to grant an injunction pendente lite does not depend upon the sufficiency of the complaint or the proofs made to sustain the writ. If it committed error in granting the writ upon an insufficient complaint, or made a wrong decision as to the sufficiency of the proofs made, the only remedy for such error was either by motion to dissolve the writ, or by appeal from the order granting the same. ID.-NATURE OF JURISDICTION.-Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine, and does not depend upon the regularity of its exercise, or upon the rightfulness of the decision made by the court. ID.-WRONG DECISION NOT QUESTIONABLE UPON PROHIBITION.-A wrong decision by the court as to pleading or evidence cannot be inquired into upon prohibition to restrain a judgment for contempt in violating an injunction. ID.-LAW AS TO WRIT OF PROHIBITION.—It is a principle of universal application, and one which lies at the very foundation of the writ of prohibition, that the jurisdiction is strictly confined to cases where no other remedy exists. |