Judge v. Kribs

• Decision Date: 09 March 1887
• Citation: 32 N.W. 324,71 Iowa 183
• Parties: JUDGE v. KRIBS AND OTHERS. JUDGE v. KOHL AND OTHERS. JUDGE v. HERRITY AND OTHERS. JUDGE v. CHRISTEASON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

71 Iowa 183

32 N.W. 324

JUDGE

v.KRIBS AND OTHERS.

JUDGE

v.KOHL AND OTHERS.

JUDGE

v.HERRITY AND OTHERS.

JUDGE

v.CHRISTEASON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 9, 1887.

Appeals from circuit court, Clinton county.

Actions in equity to restrain nuisances caused by the selling and keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors. Temporary injunctions were asked, which were denied, and the plaintiff appeals.Henry Rickel, for appellant.

Ellis & McCoy, A. Howat, and W. C. Grohe, for appellees.

SEEVERS, J.

The petitions are substantially alike, and state that the several defendants were engaged in using, keeping, and maintaining, and are intending to use, keep, and maintain, certain described premises, situate in Clinton county, for the purpose of unlawfully selling as a beverage therein certain intoxicating liquors, the sale of which as a beverage is prohibited by law; * * * and that the several defendants are now engaged in unlawfully selling, and keeping with intent to sell, such intoxicating liquors upon said premises, thereby creating and continuing a public and common nuisance. The relief asked is that a preliminary injunction issue restraining the defendants from keeping and maintaining the nuisance, and that the same, at the final hearing, be made perpetual, and the nuisance abated, as provided by law. The defendants filed answers, and denied each and every allegation in the petition.

1. The only question to be determined is whether the circuit court erred in refusing to grant temporary injunctions restraining the nuisances until the final hearing. We are required to examine the evidence, and determine such question, as if the application had been made to this court in the first instance. We have examined the evidence in each case. It is brief, readily understood, and it sufficiently appears that, prior to the day fixed for hearing the application for a temporary injunction, the defendants had been engaged in selling, in a place maintained for that purpose, intoxicating liquors as a beverage, contrary to law, and therefore were engaged in maintaining nuisances as provided by statute. The evidence is so clear, direct, and certain as to leave no room for any reasonable doubt. It is not deemed necessary to set out the evidence, or state the reasons for the conclusions reached.

2. The several defendants were witnesses in their own behalf, and severally testified, with more or less directness, that they, after notice of the hearing for the allowance of a temporary injunction was served on them, had quit the business, and, as one of them stated, he had “reformed.” In all instances, we believe, such reformation occurred a day or two before the hearing. It is upon this ground, we presume, the court refused to grant an injunction. If the nuisance is abated, there is nothing to enjoin, nor would the defendants be in any respect prejudiced if one was granted. But where it is ascertained...