State ex rel. Leary v. Tenth Judicial Dist. Court of Mower Cnty.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1900 |
| Citation | 81 N.W. 323,78 Minn. 464 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. LEARY et al. v. TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF MOWER COUNTY. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Certiorari from district court, Mower county; Nathan Kingsley, Judge.
Certiorari by the state, on the relation of J. D. Leary and others, to the district court of Tenth judicial district of Mower county. Writ quashed.
1. An appeal from an order dissolving a temporary writ of injunction, if a proper supersedeas bond be given, operates to revive and continue the writ in force pending the appeal. Following State v. Duluth St. Ry. Co., 50 N. W. 332, 47 Minn. 369.
2. In actions where a writ of injunction has been allowed and issued, and subsequent to the issuance of the writ third persons are, by order of the court, brought in, and made parties defendant, the failure of the court to require a new bond to be given, running to the new defendants, is, at most, but an irregularity, which can only be taken advantage of by motion to dissolve the writ. Upon being served with such writ of injunction, the new defendants become bound thereby, and must obey its commands. J. M. Greenman, R. J. Dowdall, and Russell, Cray & Jamison, for relators.
Lafayette French, for respondent.
In proceedings in the court below, relators were adjudged guilty of contempt of court for the violation of a temporary writ of injunction, and bring such proceedings before this court for review by writ of certiorari. On the 20th of October, 1899, an action was commenced in the district court of said Mower county by the Austin Electric Company, a corporation, against the city of Austin, and the mayor, recorder, and treasurer thereof, to enjoin and restrain the city from carrying out certain contracts it had made for the construction and equipment of an electric light plant, and from paying therefor. Upon the presentation of the summons and complaint in such action, the district court of such county, on application of plaintiff therein, duly ordered that a temporary writ of injunction issue as prayed for in the complaint. Pursuant to this order, a temporary writ was issued restraining and enjoining the defendant city, its officers and agents, from doing the threatened acts, ‘until the further order of the court.’ Prior to the issuance of the writ the usual bond was executed, approved, and filed as required by law. On October 23, 1899, and before any of the defendants had appeared in the action, the court, on application of the plaintiff, made an order making the relators herein, W. I. Gray and the Twin City Iron Works, parties defendant in the action. All papers and proceedings in the action, with the exception of the bond, were amended accordingly, and subsequently served upon the new parties. Thereafter all the defendants appeared, answered jointly, denying the equities of the complaint, and upon the complaint and such answer moved the court for an order dissolving the temporary injunction. The court made an order granting the motion, and plaintiff appealed therefrom to this court, filing a proper supersedeas bond. Notwithstanding such appeal, the relators proceeded with the work prohibited and enjoined by the temporary writ, and in proper proceedings they were adjudged guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced to pay a fine. To review such contempt proceedings they sued out this writ of certiorari. It is claimed in their behalf that the order adjudging them guilty of contempt of court was erroneous for the reasons: (1) That the temporary writ of injunction was absolutely terminated by the order dissolving it, and was not in force at the time the acts complained of were committed; (2) that plaintiff permitted and allowed the writ to terminate by failing to procure from the court below an order staying proceedings on the order dissolving it until an appeal therefrom was perfected;...
To continue reading
Request your trial