Cent. Union Tel. Co. v. State

Decision Date12 May 1887
Citation110 Ind. 203,12 N.E. 136
PartiesCentral Union Telephone Co. v. State ex rel., etc.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Tippecanoe county.

On petition for rehearing. For opinion on original hearing, see 10 N. E. Rep. 922.

Williams & Thompson, Chase & Chase, and McDonald, Butler & Mason, for appellant.

Elliott, C. J.

In their argument on the petition for a rehearing counsel assert that we misapprehended their position, and that they did not maintain that an appeal rendered an order of injunction ineffective. We have again carefully studied their original brief, and find that the main part of their argument was that the appeal prevented the court which issued the order from enforcing obedience to it by an attachment. We still think that this was substantially their position, although it is perhaps true that, in the statement of the question, there was some difference in the phraseology. We are at all events clearly of the opinion that the question as to the effect of the appeal was the principal question involved, and was the question principally discussed. We held in our former opinion, and supported our conclusion by many authorities, that the appeal did not impair the force and effect of the injunction, and to that conclusion we unhesitatingly adhere.

It is further argued that the case in which the order of injunction was granted, was for the recovery of real estate, and that in such a case an order of injunction could not issue. But, if counsel were right in this position, it would not avail them in this collateral proceeding; for there was unquestionably jurisdiction of the subject and of the person, and a mere error in granting the relief could not be made available except by a direct attack. It certainly is not the law that an order of injunction granted in a case where jurisdiction exists may be disobeyed, and its validity brought in question in proceedings on an attachment for contempt. Counsel are, however, in error in assuming that a final order of injunction may not issue prohibiting the disturbance of the plaintiff's possession; for it is in the power of our courts, exercising both common law and chancery jurisdiction, to grant such relief. In this instance, the appellants' counsel are also mistaken in assuming that the complaint in the original action was purely in ejectment, for the second paragraph states facts entitling the plaintiff to an injunction, and explicitly prays that relief.

The only error properly assigned in this court is that the circuit court erred in overruling the appellants' motion for a new trial;” for the specification that the circuit court erred in adjudging the appellants, and each of them, guilty of contempt, presents no question for our consideration. The question, under the only proper specification of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Red River Valley Brick Corporation v. City of Grand Forks
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1914
    ... ... 256; ... People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Holihan, 29 Mich. 116; ... State ex rel. Bolt v. Riordan, 73 Mich. 508, 41 N.W ... 482; State ex rel ... St. Rep. 54, 99 P ... 362; Barnes v. Chicago Typographical Union, 232 Ill ... 402, 14 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1150, 122 Am. St. Rep. 129, 83 N.E ... ...
  • Nashville Lumber Company v. Howard County
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 18, 1909
  • Ford v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 12, 1919
    ... ... Co. v. Hornberger, 141 S. W. 312, 313; Ry. Co. v. Hornberger, 106 Tex. 106, 157 S. W. 744; Union Sawmill Co. v. Felsenthal, 84 Ark. 494, 106 S. W. 677; 2 R. C. L. § 97; 22 Cyc. 1010; Lumber Co ... Reese, 121 La. 226, 46 South. 218; Lindsay v. Dist. Co., 75 Iowa, 509, 39 N. W. 817; Smith v. Tel. Co., 83 Ky. 269; Central Union v. State, 110 Ind. 203, 10 N. E. 922, 12 N. E. 136; Hawkins et al ... ...
  • State ex rel. Gibson v. Superior Court of Pierce County
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1905
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT