Spink v. Francis

Decision Date20 February 1884
PartiesFRANCIS, others.1 v. WILLIAMS SPINK v. SAME.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

A. G. Brice, Joseph P. Hornor, and F. W. Baker, for complainant.

James R. Beckwith, for defendants.

BILLINGS, J.

These are bills of complaint, which are, in their general scope, bills for an injunction to prevent interference by criminal procedure. The extent to which such a bill will lie is well defined. It is when the parties sought to be enjoined have, as plaintiffs, submitted themselves to the court by a bill in equity as to the matter or the court will by a decree, affecting the parties so situated personally, enjoin. Atty. Gen. v. Cleaver, 18 Ves. 220, 211, note a; Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 893; Jeremy, Eq. Jur. 308, 309; and 3 Daniell, Ch. Pr. (Perkin's Ed. 1865,) p. 1721. These cases have been considered upon the ground that the parties defendant in these bills are in this category. As to such parties the bills would be good, but as to no others. The bills do not show this. The demurrers must therefore be sustained, with leave to amend the bills, so as to set forth in a distinct form which of the parties sought to be enjoined have as plaintiffs in civil causes submitted the matter or right involved in or affected by the criminal procedure to this court.

PARDEE, J., concurs.

---------

Notes:

[1] Reported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.

---------

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • J.W. Kelly & Co. v. Conner
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 11 Diciembre 1909
    ... ... 386; Cohen v ... Goldsboro Commissioners, 77 N.C. 2; Waters-Pierce ... Oil Co. v. Little Rock, 39 Ark. 412; Spink v ... Francis (C. C.) 19 F. 670, and (C. C.) 20 F. 567; ... Suess v. Noble (C. C.) 31 F. 855 ...          The ... authority of this ... ...
  • State ex rel Ladd v. The District Court in and for Cass County
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 20 Marzo 1908
    ...B. Co. v. Welch Co. 42 F. 561; Platte & D. & G. v. Lee, 29 P. 1036; Hall v. Schultz, 31 How. Pr. 331; Glover v. Board, 48 F. 348; Spink v. Francis, 19 F. 670; Wadley Bount, 65 F. 667; Tuchman v. Welch, 42 F. 548. The state cannot prohibit, but may regulate the sale of wholesome food to prev......
  • Le Blanc v. City of New Orleans
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 28 Junio 1915
    ... ... Stone ... Mountain, 61 Ga. 386; Cohen v. Goldsboro ... Com'rs, 77 N.C. 2; Waters-Pierce Oi. Co. v ... Little Rock, 39 Ark. 412; Spink v. Francis [C ... C.] 19 F. 670, and [C. C.] 20 F. 567; Suess v. Noble ... [C. C.] 31 F. 855.' ... The ... court then proceeds to ... ...
  • Wadley v. Blount
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 31 Enero 1895
    ... ... Atk. 302; Lord Montague v. Dudman, 2 Ves.Sr ... 396; Attorney General v. Cleaver, 18 Ves. 220; ... Kerr v. Preston, 6 Ch.Div. 463; Spink v ... Francis, 19 F. 670, 20 F. 567; Eden, Ing. p. 42, c. 2; ... Jeremy, Eq. Jur. bk. 3, p. 308, c. 2; 3 Wood.Lect. 56; 3 ... Daniel, Ch.Prac.p, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT