State v. Dowdy

• Decision Date: 27 April 1908
• Citation: 109 S.W. 1175,86 Ark. 140
• Parties: STATE v. DOWDY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

109 S.W. 1175

86 Ark. 140

STATE v. DOWDY

Supreme Court of Arkansas

April 27, 1908

Appeal from White Chancery Court; Jesse C. Hart, Chancellor affirmed.

Affirmed.

S Brundidge, Jr., for appellant.

The original order of injunction having been properly made, it was valid and binding until annulled or revoked. No appeal was ever taken, nor any motion to dissolve the injunction ever interposed. Appellee was a party to the proceeding, and can not attack it collaterally, nor question its validity except upon the ground that it was void. 9 S.C. 606; 35 Kan 616; 12 N.E. 136; High on Injunctions, §§ 847, 848.

J. W. & M. House, for appellee.

1. The decree was too indefinite and uncertain to be enforced. It did not notify appellee in detail or in specific terms as to what acts were enjoined. 62 Ind. 493; 58 F. 132; 25 Hun, 57; 58 Conn. 502; 29 Fed. Cases, 17517; 18 Ind. 458; 74 N.Y.S. 1089; 5 Munf. (Va.) 442; 10 Paige, 485; 4 Paige, 444; 9 Paige, 234.

2. Attachment for contempt will not issue for disobedience of a temporary restraining order, but only for violation of the final decree. 9 Cal. 18; 49 Am. St. Rep. 374; 32 How. Prac. (N. Y.), 408; 5 Hare (26 Eng. Ch.), 415.

3. If the decree was definite and certain, attachment could not issue until it appeared that these terms had been violated and that Greer had suffered damages thereby. 11 Paige, 180; 10 Paige, 485.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, J.

This is an appeal from a decision of the chancery court of White County in a contempt proceeding whereby appellee was charged with having disobeyed a former decree of that court enjoining him from violating a certain contract entered into between him and one Greer, the plaintiff in that cause.

The decree which appellee is charged with having disobeyed is (omitting caption and recitals as to appearances of parties, etc.), as follows:

"And it appearing to the court that on the 9th day of September, 1895, plaintiff and defendant entered into a written contract, whereby defendant for a valuable consideration agreed that he, the said P. P. Dowdy, would in no way interfere with the title to any of the lands owned by said B. W. Greer at the time of the date of the said contract, in White County or elsewhere, either directly or indirectly to give any information to any persons which will enable them to interfere with or disturb the title or quiet enjoyment of said Greer to said lands, and that he would refrain from doing or saying anything that will disturb the peaceable and quiet possession of said Greer. And it further appearing that, since the execution of said contract, said defendant has been actually engaged in giving the divers other claimants information as to alleged irregularities in said Greer's title and inducing them to institute suits in the courts of this State against said Greer involving the title to the said Greer's lands; that said P. P. Dowdy is threatening to continue in the further interference with the business and affairs of said Greer in open violation of his said contract, and is about to procure and incite frivolous litigation; that said Dowdy is wholly insolvent, and that by reason of the acts of said defendant the plaintiff is about to suffer irreparable loss and damage. It is therefore by the court considered, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff, P. P. Dowdy, be and he is hereby perpetually and forever restrained, prohibited and enjoined from the violation of his said contract of September 9, 1895, either directly or indirectly by himself or by his agents, attorneys, or other representatives in this: That he is further restrained from interfering in any manner, directly or indirectly, with the title of any lands owned by the said Greer on the date of said contract, towit: September 9, 1895, directly or indirectly by giving information in any way or manner, directly or indirectly, to any person or persons which will enable him or them to interfere with or disturb the title or quiet enjoyment of said Greer to said lands, from doing or saying anything directly or indirectly that will disturb the peaceful and quiet possession of said Greer, and that defendant pay all costs of this action, for which execution may issue in manner and form as upon a judgment at law, and that the temporary restraining order heretofore issued herein be and the same is hereby made perpetual to the extent expressed in this decree and is set aside and held as naught except as herein expressed."

Greer filed his motion, supported by affidavit, alleging in substance that appellee had disobeyed the terms of the decree by "transferring to Bayard C. Rhodes the W. 1/2 of S. E. 1/4, section 1-7-5, and the W. 1/2 of N.W. 1/4 section 7-7-5, as attorney for H. A. Pierce in disobedience of the injunction."

Appellee filed his response to the motion, denying that he had disobeyed the injunction, and, among other things, denied that Greer ever had any title to the said tracts of land described in the motion.

The cause was submitted to the court upon the motion and supporting affidavit, and appellee's response thereto, a copy of the temporary restraining order and the former decree alleged to have been disobeyed, and also a copy of the...