Coosaw Min. Co. v. Farmers' Min. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 June 1892
• Citation: 51 F. 107
• Parties: COOSAW MIN. CO. v. FARMERS' MIN. CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

51 F. 107

COOSAW MIN. CO. v. FARMERS' MIN. CO. et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. South Carolina.

June 17, 1892

J. L McLaurin, Atty. Gen., and Mower, Mitchell & Smith, for the motion.

McCrady Sons & Bacot and Smythe & Lee, opposed.

SIMONTON District Judge.

Upon filing the bill in this case, the court, on the 6th day of March, 1891, granted the prayer of complainant for a temporary injunction. The order for the injunction required the complainant to enter into bond, with surety, in the penal sum of $25,000. Such bond was executed. Its condition is that the complainant and its sureties shall pay to the defendants 'any and all damages which they may suffer by reason of the injunction, if it shall be finally determined that the complainant in this action is not entitled thereto. ' The order granted leave to the defendants to move for the dissolution of the injunction at any time after eight days' notice. The defendants answered. Notice of motion to dissolve the injunction was made on the 6th October, 1891 and on the 5th April, 1892, an order was made dissolving the injunction. Meanwhile, pending this bill, the defendants B R. Tillman and others, the board of phosphate commissioners filed their complaint, with summons, to the state court, praying an injunction against the present complainant. The injunction was granted, and the cause was then removed into this court. The complaint, in substance, set out the same case as was set up in the answer to the bill filed originally here, and the answer of the Coosaw Mining Company was substantially the same as their bill here. The case presented precisely the same issues. At the hearing of the cause so removed the injunction was made perpetual, thus sustaining the position of the present defendants. See 47 F. 225. This decision of the circuit court was carried on appeal to the supreme court, was heard thereon, and the circuit decree was affirmed on the 4th day of April, 1892. See 12 S.Ct. 689. The next day this injunction was dissolved. A motion is now made 'that the bond given under the order of 6th March, 1891, be delivered to defendants to bring such actions under the conditions thereof as they may be advised. ' There can be no question that the court can either decide for itself what damages, if any, should be given upon the dissolution of an injunction, secured by a bond given under its order, or it can deliver the bond to the defendants for the...