Ohlrogg v. District Court of Worth County
| Decision Date | 14 April 1904 |
| Citation | 99 N.W. 178,126 Iowa 247 |
| Parties | WILLIAM OHLROGG v. THE DISTRICT COURT OF WORTH COUNTY, IOWA, AND CLIFFORD P. SMITH, JUDGE |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Worth District Court.--HON. CLIFFORD P. SMITH Judge.
THE plaintiff was adjudged guilty of contempt for the violation of a decree restraining him from the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. This is a certiorari proceeding to determine the validity of that decree.--Dismissed.
Proceeding dismissed.
Cooper Clemons & Lamb and W. A. Willing, for plaintiff.
Chas. W. Mullan, Attorney-General, and Lawrence De Graff, Assistant Attorney-General, for defendants.
An action was begun against the plaintiff herein for the September, 1896, term of the district court of Worth county, charging him with the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors in a certain building located in the town of Grafton, in that county, and praying that he be restrained from continuing the nuisance. Notice of such action was duly served upon the plaintiff, and he appeared thereto and defended. At the January, 1897, term of said court, the case was finally heard, and a decree entered therein finding that the defendant, William Ohlrogg, was maintaining a nuisance on the premises described at the time suit was commenced, and perpetually enjoining him from continuing the same. The decree also stated that the defendant was not the owner of the premises during the time that he was using them for the illegal sale of liquors, and that "since said time the premises have been sold to J. H. Hovel, and possession thereof given." In September, 1902, information was filed charging the defendant, Ohlrogg, with contempt for the violation of the injunction. The evidence clearly establishes the fact that he maintained a nuisance in the building in question between the date of decree and the filing of the information, and the only question remaining for our determination is as to the validity of the decree enjoining him from so doing.
It is contended that because of the recital in the decree that at the time of the trial the premises had changed hands, and "possession thereof given," the decree was void and had no restraining force or effect. If it be conceded, for the purpose of this case, that the decree may fairly be construed to hold that at its date the premises had in fact passed from the control of Ohlrogg, it does not follow that the injunction order was void. The court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter, and when it was determined upon the trial in January, 1897, that the defendant was maintaining a nuisance in the building at the time the suit was brought, the court had the undoubted right to restrain him from continuing the same. If it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carr v. District Court of Van Buren County
... ... must, of course, be conceded. State v ... Baldwin, 57 Iowa 266; Hatlestad v. Hardin ... District Court, 137 Iowa 146, 114 N.W. 628; Ohlrogg ... v. District Court, 126 Iowa 247, 99 N.W. 178; ... Langworthy v. McKelvey, 25 Iowa 48. And it is also ... true that a defendant in an ... ...
-
Carr v. Dist. Court of Van Buren Cnty.
...State v. Baldwin, 57 Iowa, 270, 10 N. W. 645;Hatlestad v. Hardin District Court, 137 Iowa, 146, 114 N. W. 628;Ohlrogg v. District Court, 126 Iowa, 247, 99 N. W. 178;Langworthy v. McKelvey, 25 Iowa, 55. And it is also true that a defendant in an injunction proceeding who has actual notice th......
-
Barto v. Iowa Telephone Co.
... ... F. BARTO v. IOWA TELEPHONE CO., Appellant Supreme Court" of Iowa, Des MoinesDecember 17, 1904 ... \xC2" Appeal ... from Woodbury District Court.--HON. GEO. W. WAKEFIELD, Judge ... ...
-
Barr v. Neel
...court, and we do not ordinarily reverse when such a finding is made. Sawyer v. Termohlen, 144 Iowa, 247, 122 N. W. 924;Ohlrogg v. Smith, 126 Iowa, 247, 99 N. W. 178, and cases cited. We see nothing to indicate defendant's lack of good faith, and no reason appears for setting aside the decre......