State v. Superior Court of Marion Cnty.

• Decision Date: 17 January 1934
• Docket Number: 26,411
• Citation: 206 Ind. 78
• Parties: State ex rel. Feeney v. Superior Court of Marion County Et Al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

N.E.2d

206 Ind. 78 (Ind. 1934)

State ex rel. Feeney v. Superior Court of Marion County Et Al.

No. 26,411

Supreme Court of Indiana

January 17, 1934

1. AUTOMOBILES---License and Registration---Failure to Comply with Law---Right of Court to Enjoin Impounding of Automobile.---Since the impounding of an automobile for the owner's failure to comply with license and registration law involves a property right, a superior court has equity jurisdiction to enjoin such impounding or confiscation. p 80.

2. AUTOMOBILES---License and Registration---Failure to Comply with Law---Right of Court to Enjoin Arrest.---A superior court has no power to enjoin arrest, prosecution, etc., of persons violating the automobile license and registration laws. p. 80.

3. PROHIBITION---Superior Court Exceeding Injunctive Powers---Interfering with Arrests.---Where a superior court exceeds its equity power to enjoin arrests and prosecutions for violations of criminal statutes, a writ of prohibition will be made permanent. p. 80. Temporary writ made permanent.

Philip Lutz, Jr., Attorney-General, and Edward Barce, Assistant Attorney-General, for relator. T. Ernest Maholm, for respondents.

PER CURIAM ---This is an original action seeking a writ prohibiting respondents from enforcing a restraining order against relator.

A complaint was filed with respondents seeking to enjoin relator and numerous others from enforcing the Automobile License Law, and a restraining order was issued, restraining relator and others "from enforcing or attempting to enforce either by collection, arrest, threats of arrest confinement in jail or city prison, impounding of automobiles used for individual and private use and not for hire prosecuting or attempting to prosecute any person or persons for the violation of and the enforcement of Acts 1925 Chapter 213, Section 9, until further order of this court."

Relator asks a writ prohibiting respondents from enforcing this restraining order insofar as it affects relator's right to make arrests and initiate criminal prosecutions for violation of the statute referred to.

In the case of State ex rel. Paul Fry et al. v Superior Court of Lake County et al. (1933), 205 Ind. 355, 186 N.E. 310, it is said that equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin criminal prosecutions or the operation of criminal statutes; that it has jurisdiction to protect property rights by injunction where the petitioner has no adequate...