Lea v. Deakin
| Decision Date | 01 January 1882 |
| Parties | LEA and another v. DEAKIN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Appleton & Collier, for plaintiffs.
Chas E. Pope and Geo. C. Christian, for defendant.
During the progress of this cause an injunction was issued against the defendant, and afterwards, on application of the defendant, the injunction was continued, upon condition that a bond with proper sureties should be given. There were thus three bonds given in this case. After the case had been decided on the merits in this court in favor of the defendant, and had gone to the supreme court of the United States, and been returned to this court on a stipulation of the parties reversing the decree entered in this court, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their bill at their own cost, and the injunction which was issued in the case was dissolved. Thereupon the defendant moved the court to assess the damages which he had sustained in consequence of the issuing and continuance of the injunction.
The litigation between these parties has been one of long standing, and this court has decided, on suits which have been brought upon some of the injunction bonds given during the progress of the suit, that as there was no order of this court assessing the damages of the defendant, suits could not be maintained upon the bonds. Deakin v. Stanton, 3 Fed.Rep. 435; Deakin v. Lea, 14 Chi.Leg.News 297. The condition of these bonds was as follows: The first 'to pay all damages and costs that shall be awarded against said plaintiffs, and in favor of said defendant Frank Deakin, upon the trial or final hearing of the matters referred to in said bill of complaint;' in the second, 'to pay all damages and costs that shall be awarded against said Lea & Perrins, complainants, and in favor of said defendant, Frank Deakin, upon the trial or final hearing of the said cause;' and in the third, 'to pay all damages and costs that may be awarded against said Lea & Perrins, complainants, and in favor of said Frank Deakin, defendant, upon the trial or final hearing of said cause, or upon the dissolution of said injunction, by reason of the wrongful or improper issuance of said injunction.'
The construction put by the court upon these several conditions was that they referred to damages to be assessed by the court in which the suit was pending, and under whose order the injunction bond had been given, following the case of Bien v. Heath, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buggeln v. Cameron
...bond in the suit in which the injunction was issued and at the time of its dissolution. Deakin v. Stanton, 3 F. 435; Lea v. Deakin, 13 F. 514, 11 Biss. 40; Min. Co. v. Farmers' Min. Co., 51 F. 107; Lehman v. McQuown, 31 F. 138; Coosaw Min. Co. v. Carolina Min. Co., 75 F. 860 (867); Tyler Mi......
-
United Motors Service v. Tropic-Aire
...of course merely dictum. On the general question of the power of courts of equity to retain the case and assess damages, see Lea et al. v. Deakin (C. C.) 13 F. 514; Coosaw Min. Co. v. Farmers' Min Co. et. al. (C. C.) 51 F. 107; Tyler Min. Co. et al. v. Last Chance Min. Co. (C. C. A.) 90 F. ......
-
St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Bellamy
... ... also, Reilly v. Golding, 10 Wall. 56, 19 L.Ed. 858; ... Cooke v. Avery, 147 U.S. 375, 390, 13 Sup.Ct. 340, ... 37 L.Ed. 209; Camp v. Boyd, 229 U.S. 530, 551, 33 ... Sup.Ct. 785, 57 L.Ed. 1317; Tyler Mining Co. v. Last ... Chance Mining Co., 90 F. 15, 32 C.C.A. 498; Lea v ... Deakin (C.C.) 13 F. 514; Coosaw Mining Co. v ... Farmers' Mining Co. (C.C.) 51 F. 107; Redlich ... Mfg. Co. v. John H. Rice & Co. (C.C.) 203 F. 722; ... Files v. Davis (C.C.) 118 F. 465 ... In ... Russell v. Farley, 105 U.S. 433, 445, 26 L.Ed. 1060, ... a leading case on this ... ...
-
Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co.
... ... the bond ... No ... question is raised concerning the power of this court to ... assess the damages. In Russell v. Farley, supra, the Supreme ... Court, though not deciding the point, said it was inclined to ... think such power exists. It was so held in Lea v. Deakin ... (C.C.) 13 F. 514; Coosaw Mining Co. v. Farmers' ... Mining Co. (C.C.) 51 F. 107; and Tyler Mining Co. v ... Last Chance Mining Co., 90 F. 15, 32 C.C.A. 498. In ... West v. East Coast Cedar Co., 113 F. 742, 51 C.C.A ... 411, it was held that, in any event, the court has the power, ... in ... ...