People ex rel. Messler v. Simonson

• Decision Date: 07 June 1862
• Citation: 10 Mich. 335
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: The People on relation of Peter R. Messler v. Silas Simonson and others

10 Mich. 335

The People on relation of Peter R. Messler v. Silas Simonson and others

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 7, 1862

Heard May 31, 1862

Appeal by respondents from the Genesee Circuit in Chancery.

Order of the court reversed, with costs.

Walker & Kent, for appellants:

The object of preliminary injunctions is to restrain defendants from a certain course of action supposed to be injurious to complainant: to keep the parties in statu quo until decree. It is no part of the province of such an injunction to compel a defendant to give up possession of premises, or to do any other act: Wat. Eden on Injct., 9, note; Story Eq. Juris § 861; 2 Green Ch., 136. And (Simonson) in maintaining his possession did not disobey the injunction: Hemingway v Preston, Wal. Ch., 528.

Goulds & Hanchett, contra:

If it were true tat Simonson was in possession when the writ issued, it would not be competent to show it as evidence that he was not guilty of a contempt. He should have moved to dissolve the injunction, instead of disregarding it. It must be obeyed though improperly issued: 1 Barb. Ch. Pr., 632 636; 4 Paige 444; 2 Edw. Ch., 188; 1 Hoff. Ch. Pr., 450; 3 Swanst. 626; 1 Wat. Eden on Injct., 102; 2 Ch. Ca., 203; 6 Ves. 109; 3 Meriv. 149.

But it is insisted on the facts shown that he was not in possession.

OPINION

Campbell J.

Respondents were proceeded against under the statute punishing contempts to enforce civil remedies. Complainant filed his bill claiming to be in actual possession of certain premises, and praying to have defendant Silas Simonson enjoined from trespasses of a nature likely to injure the buildings, and threatened to be repeated.

An injunction was issued which was allowed in accordance with the prayer of the bill, but which enjoined Silas Simonson, and his attorneys, agents and servants, from in any way interfering or meddling with the possession, and from entering into the premises.

The affidavits on which the attachment was applied for set forth that, in the month of September previous to the filing of the bill (which was in January, 1861), Simonson had been put out of possession by a writ of possession in favor of Messler. That in December, 1860, early in the month, one Peter Van Ness, took a lease from Messler for eighteen months, and was put in actual possession about the first of January, but was put out again the same day, with all his effects, by Silas Simonson....