Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

may be awarded against him; nor shall the issuing of such injunction in any manner impair the lien produced by the issuing of the warrant. And the same proceedings shall be had in such injunction as in other cases, except that no answer shall be necessary on the part of the United States; and if, upon dissolving the injunction, it appears to the satisfaction of the judge that the application for the injunction was merely for delay, the judge may add to the lawful interest assessed on all sums found due against the complainant such damages as, with such lawful interest, shall not exceed the rate of ten per centum a year. Such injunction may be granted or dissolved by the district judge either in or out of court."1 "When the district judge refuses to grant an injunction to stay proceedings on a distress warrant, as aforesaid, or dissolves such injunction after it is granted, any person who considers himself aggrieved by the decision in the premises may lay before the circuit justice, or circuit judge of the circuit within which such district lies, a copy of the proceeding had before the district. judge; and thereupon the circuit justice or circuit judge may grant an injunction, or permit an appeal, as the case may be, if, in his opinion, the equity of the case requires it. The same proceedings, subject to the same conditions, shall be had upon such injunction in the Circuit Court as are prescribed in the District Court."2 "Whenever an association against which proceedings have been instituted, on account of any alleged refusal to redeem its circulating notes as aforesaid, denies having failed to do so, it may, at any time within ten days after it has been notified of the appointment of an agent, as provided in section fifty-two hundred and twenty-seven" of the Revised Statutes of the United States, "apply to the nearest Circuit, or District, or Territorial court of the United States to enjoin further proceedings in the premises; and such court, after citing the Comptroller of the Currency to show cause why further proceedings should not be enjoined, and after the decision of the court or finding of a jury that such association has not refused to redeem its circulating notes, when legally presented, in the lawful money of the United States, shall make an order enjoining the Comptroller, and any receiver acting under his direction, from all further proceedings on ac§ 222. U. S. R. S., § 3636. 2 U. S. R. S., § 3637.

count of such alleged refusal." A district attorney of the United States acting under the direction of the AttorneyGeneral may upon a petition obtain an injunction to restrain a contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or a conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce, or a monopoly of any part of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations. Compliance with the interstate commerce act may also, in certain cases, be compelled by an injunction.5

§ 223. When injunctions will not issue. As a general rule, it may be stated that an injunction will not issue at the prayer of one who will suffer no pecuniary injury from the act which he wishes to prevent.' Thus, one will not be granted at the suit of a State to prevent the invasion of a purely political right; or of adjacent property owners and church members to prevent a railroad from outraging their religious feelings by running cars upon Sunday; nor at the suit of a minister of the gospel to prevent the use of his building for theatrical purposes, under a lease the validity of which he disputes. The Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, however, was allowed an injunction to prevent Kossuth and his associates from manufacturing in England paper currency not purporting to be issued by imperial authority, intended for circulation in Hungary, upon the ground that his property rights were thereby injured. An injunction will not issue to prevent an injury which is not actually threatened to the complainant. Thus an injunction will not be granted to prevent an injury to a navigable stream, at the suit of an individual who is not

U. S. R. S., § 5237.

426 St. at L., ch. 647, p. 209; 28 St. at L., p. 570; U. S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U. S. 290; U. S. v. Joint Traffic Ass'n, 171 U. S. 505; Addyston P. & S. Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 211. It has been held that this statute applies to a strike intended to prevent the operation of a railroad used for interstate commerce. Thomas v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. R. 803, 821; U. S. v. Agler, 62 Fed. R. 824; U. S. v. Elliott, 62 Fed. R. 801; U. S. v. Workingmen's

A. C. of N. O., 54 Fed. R. 994; In re Lennon, 166 U. S. 548. But see U. S. v. Patterson, 55 Fed. R. 605.

5 24 St. at L. 380.

$223. High on Injunctions, § 20. 2 Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall 50. 3 Sparhawk v. Union P. R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 401.

4 Bod well v. Crawford, 26 Kan. 292. 5 Emperor of Austria v. Day, 2 Giff. 628; s. c. on appeal, 3 De G., F. & J. 217.

6 Slessinger v. Buckingham, 17 Fed. R. 454.

10

8

engaged in navigating the same; nor, at the suit of a coupon holder who is not liable to the payment of taxes to a State, to prevent the State officers from refusing to receive his coupons, when tendered by others to whom he has agreed to assign them for the payment of their taxes, in pursuance of a contract made by the State with its creditors and their successors. "No court sits to determine questions of law in thesi." A threat of irreparable injury to a right actually enjoyed and exercised by the complainant, or acts indicating a preparation to commit such a wrong, are, however, always a`ground for the issue of an injunction. And after a defendant has once infringed a patent owned by the plaintiff, it seems that the court will usually enjoin him from doing so in the future, even though he swears that he has no intention of doing so again; unless he further proves that he has paid all damages, occasioned by his infringement, and has desisted from it." The Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York has refused to grant a preliminary injunction to restrain an obstruction to navigation in a navigable channel coming up from the Bay of New York, caused by a structure projecting from the New Jersey shore. 12 An injunction cannot be issued against the United States; 13 nor against an officer to interfere with the exercise of his discretion; " nor against an officer of the United

14

7 Spooner v. McConnell, 1 McLean, 337. See also Mason v. Rollins, 2 Biss. 99. Cf. Works v. Junction R. Co., 5 McLean, 425.

But see

Mfg. Co., 34 Fed. R. 324.
Home Ins. Co. v. Nobles, 63 Fed. R.
642.

12 Atlantic D. Co. v. Bergen Neck

8 Virginia Coupon Cases, Marye v. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 208. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325.

9 Matthews, J., in Virginia Coupon Cases, Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325, 330.

10 St. Louis v. Knapp Co., 104 U. S. 658; Sherman v. Nutt, 35 Fed. R. 149; Butz Thermo-El. Reg. Co. v. Jacobs El. Co., 36 Fed. R. 191; McArthur v. Kelly, 5 Ohio, 139; Frearson v. Loe, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 48. See also Piek v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 6 Biss. 177.

11 Jenkins v. Greenwald, 1 Bond, 126; s. C., 2 Fisher, 37; Sickels v. Mitchell, 3 Blatchf. 548; Poppenhusen v. N. Y. G. P. C. Co., 4 Blatchf. 184; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Arlington

13 U. S. v. McLemore, 4 How. 286; Hill v. U. S., 9 How. 386.

14

Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475; Walker v. Smith, 21 How. 579; McElrath v. McIntosh, 1 Law R. (N. S.) 399; Warner V. S. Co. v. Smith, 165 U. S. 28; Smith v. Raynolds, 9 D. C. App. 287, 166 U. S. 717. An injunction has been issued to restrain the Secretary of the Interior from the commission of an act beyond his jurisdiction which would cause an irreparable injury to the plaintiff. Noble v. Union R. L. R. Co., 147 U. S. 165. Cf. U. S. v. Nourse, 9 Pet. 8; Kirwan v. Murphy (C. C. A.), 83 Fed.

States to prevent the infringement of a patent by him while in the exercise of his official duties.15 The Revised Statutes provide that "No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax" imposed by the United States for purposes of internal revenue, "shall be maintained in any court." 16 Under this provision, it has been held that wherever a tax is imposed by a person in office having authority over the assessment of taxes for the United States, and acting under color of a statute, no injunction will be issued to restrain its collection, no matter how erroneous the assessment may be, and although the person against whom the assessment is made does not own the property taxed.17 "It is sufficient that a stat ute has authorized the assessor to entertain the general subject of taxation; that it was in fact entertained, and a judgment, lawful or unlawful, was rendered concerning it." 18 It seems that the unconstitutionality of the statute imposing the tax will not authorize the issue of an injunction; 19 but it has been held that a bill to restrain a trustee from voluntarily making a return of his income and from paying an unconstitutional income tax is not within the prohibition of the statute.20 An injunction cannot issue against a State at the suit of a citizen of another State or of a foreign State." Nor can a mandatory injunction issue against an officer of a State so as to compel

R. 275; s. C., 49 U. S. App. 659. It has been held that a State court has no power to enjoin an officer of the United States. People ex rel. Brewer v. Kidd, 23 Mich. 440. It has been held that an injunction will not issue to restrain the Commissioner of Patents from issuing letters-patent. Illingworth v. Atha, 42 Fed. R. 141. 15 James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356; Hollister v. Benedict & B. Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 59, 67; Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10; supra, § 36; infra, § 442. 16 U. S. R. S., § 3224. It has been held that a mandatory injunction requir. ing a collector of internal revenue to accept an export bond for spirits in a warehouse and to allow their withdrawal for export, without payment of taxes, is in effect a bill to restrain the collection of internal revenue,

[blocks in formation]

17 Kensett v. Stivers, 10 Fed. R. 517; Pullan v. Kinsinger, 2 Abb. U. S. 94; Howland v. Soule, Deady, 413; Delaware R. Co. v. Prettyman, 17 Int. Rev. Rec. 99; Alkan v. Bean, 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 351; Kissinger v. Bean, 7 Biss. 60; U. S. v. Black, 11 Blatchf. 538. But see Frayser v. Russell, 3 Hughes, 227.

18 Emmons, J., in Pullan v. Kinsinger, 2 Abb. U. S. 94, 99.

19 Robbins v. Freeland, 14 Int. Rev. Rec. 28; Moore v. Miller, 5 D. C. App. 413.

20 Pollock v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 157 U. S. 429, 454, 653.

21 Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution.

the action of the State against its expressed will. But an officer of a State may be enjoined from an invasion of private rights which would cause irreparable injury, when about to act under an unconstitutional State statute.23 As has been said before, an injunction will not ordinarily be granted to stay proceedings in a State court. In England, a person may be restrained from petitioning or applying to the legisla ture in order to procure the passage of an act relating solely to private interests, provided he be under an express or implied agreement not to do so, or his doing so would amount to a breach of trust.25 This doctrine has, however, never been upheld in the United States, and in a well-considered case in New Jersey was expressly repudiated.26 The early English cases held that an injunction would not issue to restrain the publication of a slander or libel, no matter how injurious it might be to the complainant.27 Since the passage of the Judicature Act, however, such injunctions have been granted there in order to protect rights of property.28 An injunction was denied when sought to prevent a defendant from advertising that a patent was void, and it appeared that he honestly believed it to be so, and published the statement for the sole purpose of protecting what he believed to be his rights.29 Whether a Federal court

22 Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711; Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769, 782-784: Cunningham v. M. & B. R. Co., 109 U. S. 446; supra, § 37. But see McCauley v. Kellog, 2 Woods, 13. 23 Osborn v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat. 738; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203; Board of L. v. McComb, 92 U. S. 531; Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. 269; Louisiana v. Layarde, 60 Fed. R. 186. See, however, In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443; supra, § 37.

L. R. 10 Ch. 142; Clark v. Freeman, 11 Beav. 112. See also Brandreth v. Lance, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 24; Mauger v. Dick, 55 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 132; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Domestic S. M. Co., 49 Ga. 70; Boston D. Co. v. Florence Mfg. Co., 114 Mass. 69; Whitehead v. Kitson, 119 Mass. 484; Smith v. Hutchinson S. B. Co., 110 Mo. 492.

28 Thorley's C. F. Co. v. Massam, L. R. 6 Ch. D. 582; Saxby v. Easterbrook, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 339; Wren v.

24 U. S. R. S., § 720; supra, § 211; Weild, L. R. 4 Q. B. 730. See also infra, § 391.

25 Ware v. Grand J. W. W. Co., 2 Russ. & M. 470; Stockton & H. Ry. Co. v. Leeds & Th. Ry. Co., 2 Phil. 666; Heathcote v. N. S. Ry. Co., 2 Mac. & G. 100.

Grand Rapids S. F. Co. v. Haney S.
F. Co., 92 Mich. 558; s. c., 52 N. W.
R. 1009.

29 Halsey v. Brotherhood, 45 L. T. (N. S.) 640; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear D. V. Co., 13 Blatchf. 375;

26 Story v. J. C. & B. P. P. R. Co., 1 Pentlarge v. Pentlarge, 14 Repr. 579;

C. E. Green (16 N. J. Eq.), 13.

27 Prudential Assur. Co. v. Knott,

N. F. Filter Co. v. Schwartzwalder, 58 Fed. R. 577.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »