Steyer v. McCauley

• Decision Date: 12 May 1897
• Citation: 71 N.W. 194,102 Iowa 105
• Parties: STEYER v. MCCAULEY ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

102 Iowa 105

71 N.W. 194

STEYER

v.MCCAULEY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 12, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Winnesheik county; A. N. Hobson, Judge.

This is an action in equity begun August 10, 1896, to restrain the defendants from maintaining an alleged liquor nuisance on a certain lot in the town of West Decorah, Iowa. The prayer asks that the nuisance be abated; that defendant Emil Rosenthal be enjoined from using or permitting said premises to be used for the keeping of intoxicating liquors with intent to be sold in violation of law; also, that each defendant be enjoined from selling or keeping for sale intoxicating liquors on said premises, or elsewhere in said judicial district. An order was made for a hearing upon the application for a temporary injunction. Evidence was taken in support of the application, and in resistance thereof. Upon said hearing it appeared that the mulct law was operative in the town of West Decorah; that defendant Emil Rosenthal claimed to have complied with said law in all respects; that at a prior term of court said Emil Rosenthal had been enjoined from keeping, using, and occupying the same premises, by himself or agents, for the sale of intoxicating liquors; that said injunction was granted upon the petition of one Cameron; that in January, 1895, said Cameron commenced proceedings against defendant Emil Rosenthal for contempt for a violation of said injunction; and that said contempt proceeding is still pending. The court refused the application for a temporary injunction, and, the cause thereafter coming on for a hearing upon the merits, the defendants denied all of the allegations of the petition, and pleaded the former action, and the injunction and proceedings thereunder, as still pending. Evidence was introduced, and it was agreed that, in the action in which the injunction was granted, J. B. Kaye was the attorney for the plaintiff, Cameron; that no writ of abatement issued in that suit. Plaintiff amended his petition, admitting the issuance of the injunction, and says that the plaintiff in that action and in this is not the same; that the attorneys are different, and that no writ of abatement issued in the former suit; that McCauley and Bertha Rosenthal were not parties to the former suit. A decree was entered dismissing plaintiff's petition, and rendering a judgment against him for costs. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.E. R. Acres, for appellant.

Geo. W. Adams, for appellees.

KINNE, C. J.

This case presents the question whether, after an injunction has issued restraining one from continuing a liquor nuisance, and after proceedings thereunder have been commenced against him for contempt for violating said injunction, which proceedings are still pending and undisposed of, another citizen of the county may maintain another suit against the same and other...