Kean v. Hurley
Decision Date | 09 February 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 13922.,13922. |
Citation | 179 F.2d 888 |
Parties | KEAN v. HURLEY et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Clarence W. Heyl, Peoria, Ill. (Heyl, Royster & Voelker, Peoria, Ill. and Roy J. Mordaunt, Minneapolis, Minn. on the brief) for appellant.
Mandt Torrison, St. Paul, Minn. (Thomas O. Kachelmacher, George W. Colburn and James B. Lund, Minneapolis, Minn. on the brief) for appellees.
Before GARDNER, Chief Judge, and WOODROUGH and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
The original decree was entered May 11, 1925, but was later amended by adding certain parcels of land to it and substituting the present plaintiff in lieu of the original plaintiff, who was her predecessor in interest.
Upon petition of appellant the court, under date April 23, 1948, directed appellees to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for violating this injunction. The plaintiff alleged trespassing upon the premises by the appellees. Appellees filed answers supported by affidavits in which they challenged the sufficiency of the petition and affidavit accompanying the same, to state a cause of action, and they alleged that they were not acquainted with the defendants named in the injunction suit; that they are not officers, agents, servants, employees or attorneys for the named defendants; that they had never been associated with them in any way; that they had never been personally served with a copy of the injunction and had no actual notice of it; that the court was without jurisdiction to issue the original or amended injunction so far as the appellees were concerned. Other allegations do not seem to be material to the issues actually decided by the trial court. After full hearing the court entered findings holding that appellees were not in contempt of court. The court found that appellees had not acted in concert with the named defendants or participated with them and that the court was without jurisdiction to issue an injunction against appellees in the terms which it did. The court made no findings as to the acts constituting the alleged trespass, nor as to the knowledge or notice of the issuance of the injunction prior to appellees' acts of going upon the land. We shall confine our consideration to the issue determined by the trial court.
Appellant maintains in this court, as it did in the trial court, that the court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction binding upon the appellees, though they were not parties to the action, nor officers, agents, servants, employees or attorneys for the named defendants.
At the time of the entry of the injunctional decree, Section 383, Title 28 U.S. C.A., was in full force and effect. The section provides, "Every order of injunction or restraining order * * * shall be binding only upon the parties to the suit, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, or those in active concert or participating with them, and who shall, by personal service or otherwise, have received actual notice of the same."
This matter of procedure is now governed by Rule 65(d) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. So far as the question here involved, the now prevailing rule of court is substantially the same as the above quoted statute.
The trial court in disposing of the issue, among other things said,
A judgment or decree for injunction is usually in personam and as such binding upon the parties to the litigation and those who are represented by such parties or are in privity with them. Stated conversely, persons who are not parties to the injunction or in privity with them, and whose rights have not been adjudicated therein, are not bound by the decree and can not be held liable for acts done contrary thereto even though the decree assumes to bind them. Chase National...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thaxton v. Vaughan
...65(d). United Pharmacal Corp. v. United States, 306 F.2d 515 (1 Cir. 1962); Swetland v. Curry, 188 F.2d 841 (6 Cir. 1951); Kean v. Hurley, 179 F.2d 888 (8 Cir. 1950); Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832 (2 Cir. 1930), opinion by L. Hand. 4) Plaintiff further asserts that the representa......
-
State v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.
...operation of a dance hall a misdemeanor, was enacted after the decision).23 Chamblin v. Schlichter, 12 Minn. 276, (Gil. 181); Kean v. Hurley, 8 Cir., 179 F.2d 888.24 And see, State v. Donaldson, 41 Minn. 74, 82, 42 N.W. 781, ...
-
Stell v. Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education
...61 L.Ed. 1148; Hale v. Finch, 104 U.S. 261, 26 L.Ed. 732; Hansberry et al. v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 61 S.Ct. 115, 85 L.Ed. 22; Kean v. Hurley, 8 Cir., 179 F.2d 888; 28 U.S.C.A. Rule The general principles are set forth by Mr. Justice Stone in Hansberry v. Lee: "It is a principle of general appl......
- 79 Hawai'i 208, Locations, Inc. v. Hawai'i Dept. of Labor and Indus. Relations
-
Using quasi-in-rem jurisdiction to prevent pre-suit loss or alteration of evidence.
...Labor Relations Bd., 440 U.S. 301, 305 (1979); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). (31.) Kean v. Hurley, 179 F.2d 888, 890 (8th Cir. (32.) Regal Knitwear Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945); Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Faulkner, 991 F.2d 26......