Arnold v. Bright

• Decision Date: 17 June 1879
• Citation: 2 N.W. 16,41 Mich. 207
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: HIRAM ARNOLD v. DAVID R. BRIGHT and ELMER E. BRIGHT.

2 N.W. 16

41 Mich. 207

HIRAM ARNOLD v. DAVID R. BRIGHT and ELMER E. BRIGHT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 17, 1879

Where upon the filing of the bill, the court, by an ex-parte order granted an injunction, the effect of which was to adjudge the whole merits of the controversy, and give the complainant all the fruits of a final decree, held, that such order was erroneous.

COOLEY, J.

The most striking feature of this case is, that on the filing of the bill, by an ex-parte order, the court adjudged the whole merits of the controversy by means of an injunction, turned the defendants out of possession of premises of which they were prima facie lawful occupants under complainant's lease, and allowed the complainant to have the immediate benefit of a final decree in his favor, by entering and occupying. Inasmuch as the lease had then but five months to run, under notices which had been given to terminate it, and as a contested suit could not probably terminate in that time, the complainant was thus, by a preliminary and ex-parte order, given the fruits of a final decree in his favor. The injunction commanded the defendants "that you, and each of you, do absolutely desist and refrain from exercising any management and control over, or interference with, the farm of the complainant, which you claim to have been let to you by said complainant, or of the other property let to you by the complainant, or any part thereof, or any of the crops or products on said farm being and growing, and from entering upon said farm, and from picking the strawberries thereon being and growing, and from removing, using and marketing the same, or from, in any manner, interfering with or disturbing complainant in picking and marketing the strawberry crop now growing on said farm, and in managing controlling and cultivating said farm, and in his taking and enjoying full and entire possession thereof, and every part and parcel thereof and of the property of complainant mentioned in the contract of lease, without let or hindrance of any kind of you," the said defendants.

The court of chancery has no more power than any other to condemn a man unheard, and to dispossess him of property prima facie his, and hand over its enjoyment to another on an ex-parte claim to it. In several cases it has been decided that possession of lands is not to be disturbed by means of a preliminary injunction. Hemingway v. Preston Wal.Ch. 528; People v. Simonson, 10 Mich. 335. Under the case last mentioned the injunction issued in this case might have been disregarded with impunity, and very serious questions might have arisen had the entrance of complainant upon the premises been resisted by force. A similar prejudgment of controversies, by the appointment of receivers, has been held in several cases to be wholly unwarranted by law. Port Huron, Etc., R. Co. v. Judge of St. Clair Circuit, 31 Mich. 456; Port Huron, Etc R. Co. v. Jones, 33 Mich. 303; McCombs v. Merrihew, 40 Mich. And in other cases we have held that when there has been such a premature adjudication of the merits of a controversy, the party injured by it might appeal from it as from a final order. Barry v. Briggs, 22 Mich. 201; Lewis v. Campan, 14 Mich. 458; Taylor v. Sweet, 40 Mich. 736. Thus, by the making of an unwarranted order, the parties must surrender rights, or be put to the expense...