« AnteriorContinuar »
as the decision in one individual case would be no bar to any other, there would be no end to litigation and strife. The doctrine is analogous to that relating to bills in equity by private persons for injunctions against public nuisances, - the rule being that such actions cannot be maintained unless the complainant shows a particular injury to himself distinct from that which he suffers in common with the rest of the public.? When, therefore, the slack-water navigation of the Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company maintained, by means of pumps, locks, and other devices, was destroyed by a flood, it was held that a bill in equity could not be maintained by another corporation, to enjoin the former corporation from neglecting to repair and put in operation their navigation; and that the complainants had no right to a decree compensating them for any damages suffered as an incident to the non-repairing.'
1 Buck Mountain Coal Co. v. Le- before used the water of the river high Coal & Nav. Co., 50 Pa. St. 91, might equally claim compensation, 99; 8. c. 88 Am. Dec. 534.
for which there was no pretense. · Bigelow v. Hartford Bridge Co., And by the same rule, if the salubrity 14 Conn. 565; 8. C. 36 Am. Dec. 502. of the air in Bristol were impaired in
& Buck Mountain Coal Co. v. Le- consequence of the docks, every inhigh Coal & Nav. Co., 50 Pa. St. 91, habitant of the place might as well 99; 8. C. 88 Am. Dec. 534. On anal- claim compensation. For general inogous grounds, a mandamus was de- juries, common to all the subjects, nied by Lord Ellenborough, in the the remedy is by indictment; and Court of King's Bench, to a brewery suppose that is taken away by the act company, to assess damages against (which was admitted), then the act a dock company for polluting the wa- has taken away the only remedy ters of a public navigable river, from which the law would have given for which the brewery company had been this general injury. Rex v. Bristol accustomed to draw water by pumps, Dock Co., 12 East, 429, 432. Analowherewith to brew their beer. Lord gous decisions denying private right Ellenborough was of opinion that a of action for the redress of injuries private proprietor cannot have such common to the whole public- many a right in the waters of a public navic of them so unjust that their doctrines gable river as would give him a right have been measurably discarded in to compensation for the deterioration modern times, are: Rose v. Miles, of the same by a company proceeding 4 Maule & S. 101; Ivison v. Moor, 1 under an act of Parliament. The in- Lord Raym. 486; Earle's Case, Carth. jury, if any, was to all the king's sub- 173; Wilkes v. Hungerford Market jects, and that was the subject-matter Co., 2 Bing. N. C. 281; Greasly u. of indictment, and not of action. Codling, 2 Bing. 263. Otherwise, every person who had
8 7782. Injunctions against Strikes, Boycots, and Other Combinations among Workmen. Within the last few years the powers of courts of equity have been called into play to an extent hitherto unprecedented, at the suits of employers of labor, individual and corporate, to restrain strikes, boycots, and other combinations and conspiracies among their em. ployés, injurious to the property and business of the complainants. The use of the injunction in such cases is vindicated upon the ground that equity exercises this species of jurisdiction for the protection of property and business against irreparable injury, threatened by persons who are insolvent, and who, by reason of their numbers, cannot be impleaded in proceedings at law, without a multiplicity of actions. An extended discussion of this subject cannot be regarded as germane to a work on corporations; but, briefly stated, it may be said that injunctions have been granted to restrain striking employés from intimidating other employés, so as to induce them to quit their employment, or to prevent persons from engaging in the employment of the plaintiffs;a to restrain
i Ceur d'Alene Consolidated Mining Co. v. Miners' Union of Wardner, 51 Fed. Rep. 260; 8. C. 19 L. R. A. 382; Casey v. Cincinnati Typographical Union, 45 Fed. Rep. 135; 8. C. 12 L. R. A. 193 (where there is an extensive note on the subject); State v. Glidden, 53 Conn. 46; 8. C. 3 Am. St. Rep. 23; Sherry 6. Perkins, 147 Mass. 212; $. 9 Am. St. Rep. 689; Murdock v. Walker, 152 Pa. St. 595; 8. C. 34 Am. St. Rep. 678; Barr v. Essex Trades' Council (N. J. Eq.), 30 Atl. Rep. 881; Continental Ins. Co. 1. Board of Underwriters, 67 Fed. Rep. 310; Longshore Printing &c. Co. v. Howell, 26 Or. 527; 8. c. 38 Pac. Rep. 547 (where the injunction was refused on the ground that the injury did not appear to be irreparable); Wick China Co. v. Brown, 164 Pa. St. 449; 8. c. 35 W. N. C. 330;
25 Pitts. L. J. (N. 8.) 151; 30 Atl. Rep. 261; Reynolds v. Everett, 144 N. Y. 189; 8. c. 63 N. Y. St. Rep. 89; 39 N. E. Rep. 72 (where a permanent injunction was refused because the strike had ceased, and the injury did not appear to be irreparable); Farmers' Loan &c. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 60 Fed. Rep. 803; Arthur v. Oakes, 63 Fed. Rep. 310 (appeal in the preceding case); California R. Co. v. Rutherford, 62 Fed. Rep. 796; United States v. Elliott, 64 Fed. Rep. 27; United States v. Debs, 64 Fed. Rep. 724; Re Debs, 158 U. S. 564. See also Davis v. Foreman (1894), 3 Ch. 654 (where an injunction was refused to restrain an employé from quitting his employment).
2 Cæur d'Alene &c. Min. Co. 0. Miners' Union, 51 Fed. Rep. 260; 8. C. 19 L. R. A. 382; Wick China Co. v. Brown, 164 Pa. St. 449.
persons from gathering in crowds at the plaintiff's place of business and interfering with his workmen;' to restrain the continuation of a so-called “boycot” against a newspaper;? in courts of the United States, under the Act of Congress of July 2, 1890,' to restrain striking railway employés from interrupting the operations of interstate commerce;' to restrain railway employés, while continuing in their employment, from refusing to perform their duties, when such refusal interferes with the transmission of the mails and with the operations of commerce between the States;s to restrain the employés of the receivers of a railway, appointed by a court of the United States, from entering into combinations or con. spiracies for the purpose of crippling the property in the hands of the receivers, and embarrassing the operation of the rail. roads under their management, either by disabling the engines, cars, etc., or by interfering with their possession; or by actually obstructing their control and management of the property; or by using force, threats, or other wrongful methods against the receivers, their agents, or employés remaining in their service; or by using like methods to cause their employés to quit their service; or by preventing or deterring others from entering their service in the place of those leaving it; but not to enjoin them from merely quitting the serv. ice singly or in a body, for the purpose of securing better wages or better terms of employment. The Federal doctrine
1 Murdock v. Walker, 152 Pa. St. 994; 3. c. 26 L. R. A. 158; Thomas v. 595; 8. c. 34 Am. St. Rep. 678; Sherry Cincinnati &c. R. Co., 62 Fed. Rep. v. Perkins, 147 Mass. 212; 8. c. 9 Am. 803; United States v. Debs, 63 Fed. St. Rep. 689.
Rep. 436; Re Charge to Grand Jury, Barr v. Essex Trades' Council, 62 Fed. Rep. 828; Re Grand Jury, 62 (N. J. Eq.) 30 Atl. Rep. 881.
Fed. Rep. 834; Re Grand Jury, 62 8 26 U. S. Stat. 209.
Fed. Rep. 840; United States v. Cas. • United States v. Elliott, 62 Fed. sidy, 67 Fed. Rep. 698. Compare Rep. 801; and 64 Fed. Rep. 27; United States v. Patterson, 55 Fed. United States v. Debs, 64 Fed. Rep. Rep. 605, where this use of the in724; 8. c. 27 Chicago Leg. News, 139. junction is disapproved by Mr. Cir. See also Re Debs, 158 U. S. 564; To- cuit Judge Putnam. ledo &c. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co.,
• Southern California R. Co. v. 54 Fed. Rep. 730, 746; 8. c. 19 L. R. A. Rutherford, 62 Fed. Rep. 796. 387, 395; United States v. Workmen's 6 Arthur v. Oakes, 63 Fed. Rep. Amalgamated Council, 54 Fed. Rep. 310; 8. c. 25 L. R. A. 414; modifying
on this subject may be said to have culminated in a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which must remain for all time the leading Federal case on this subject, in which the court unanimously affirmed the proposition that the United States may, by a bill in equity in its own courts, restrain the striking employés of railway companies from interfering with the operations of interstate commerce, and with the transportation of the United States mails, and may punish them for contempt, without trial by jury, for disobeying such restraining orders. The court proceeds upon the view that the United States has jurisdiction over every foot of soil within its territory, and that it is entitled to exert its authority directly upon each citizen, - a principle unquestionably sound and of the very greatest importance. The jurisdiction to grant an injunction in such cases is upheld upon the settled doctrine of the English Court of Chancery, that an injunction would be granted at the suit of the Attorney-General to restrain purprestures of public highways and navigations. The opinion of the court, delivered by Mr. Justice Brewer, is a very learned and conclusive presentation of the subject, and is, throughout, clear and strong.'
§ 7783. Other Decisions Illustrating the Use of Injunctions in the Case of Corporations. — Injunctions have been granted in England to restrain the prosecution of corporate work, at the suit of
8. C. sub nom. Farmers' Loan &c. Co. 60 Fed. Rep. 803. The opinion of v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 60 Fed. Rep. Mr. District Judge Philips in United 803.
States v. Elliott, 64 Fed. Rep. 27,– The leading Federal case, so far case growing out of the Debs conspidecided, relating to the extent of the racy, - is likewise learned, clear, and power to enjoin etriking employés, is persuasive. Some of the cases above Arthur v. Oakes, 63 Fed. Rep. 310; referred to incidentally decide that $. c. 25 L. R. A. 414, decided by the
the act of Congress “to legalize the United States Court of Appeals, in
incorporation of National Trades very learned and well-considered Unions" (24 U. S. Stat. 567), does not opinion by Mr. Justice Harlan in
operate to restrain the exercise of the 1894; modifying an injunctive order jurisdiction here spoken of: Arthur previously granted by Mr. Circuit v. Oakes, 63 Fed. Rep. 310; 8. c. 25 Judge Jenking, in the same case, re
L. R. A. 414; Farmers' Loan &c. Co. ported under the name of Farmers' v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 60 Fed. Rep. Loan &c. Co.v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 803.
shareholders, on the ground that the corporation has not sufficient funds to complete the work, and that the undertaking is likely to prove abortive;' to restrain breaches of trust on the part of a trustee at the suit of a private corporation;' to enjoin a disproportionate issue of shares upon a reorganization after a foreclosure;' to enjoin the infringement of a patented invention, the managing officers of the corporation being joined as defendants, in order that contempt proceedings may go against them;* to remove the name of the plaintiff from a register of shareholders—that is "to rectify the register";s at the suit of judgment creditors, to enjoin the corporation and its manag. ing officers from making a fraudulent disposition of its property, or from disposing of it to prefer certain creditors, and for the appointment of a receiver — but not at the suit of a general creditor;' and to enjoin a fraudulent scheme, by which the assets of a railroad company are turned over to a rival company.'
§ 7784. Cases where Such Injunctions not Granted. — An injunction will not be granted, at the suit of a tax-payer, to enjoin a railroad company from receiving State aid without complying with the conditions under which such aid has been granted, since this is a question which can only be raised by the public authorities;' nor to restrain the prosecution of an action at law against the plaintiff
Agar v. Regent's Canal Co., MS., Kent, 1 Colo. 336. See also Georgecited by Lord Eldon in King's Lynn town v. Glaze, 3 Colo. 230. v. Pemberton, 1 Swanst. 243, 250 ; 3 Lincoln Nat. Bank v. Portland, 8. C., on another point, Coop. Cas. 77. 82 Me. 99; 8. c. 7 Rail. & Corp. L. J. But Lord Eldon refused to extend' 297; 19 Atl. Rep. 102. this principle so as to restrain a cor- Iowa Barb Steel Wire Co. u. poration from prosecuting work on Southern Barbed-Wire Co., 30 Fed. its own land, upon the ground that Rep. 123, opinion by Thayer, J. an injury would ensue to the com- • Routh v. Webster, 10 Beav. 561 ; plainants provided they should complete Taylor v. Hughes, 2 Jones & Lat. 24; the work; since this would involve the Shortridge v. Bosanquet, 16 Beav. 84. absurdity of asking the court to inter- Compare Bullock v. Chapman, 2 De fere on the ground that they had not Gex & Sm. 211; ante, 1446. funds to complete the work, when no 6 Consolidated Tank-Line Co. v. injury could accrue to the complain- Kansas City Varnish Co., 43 Fed. Rep. ant until the work should be com- 204; 8. c. 8 Rail. & Corp. L. J., 457. pleted. King's Lynn v. Pemberton, ? Erie R. Co. v. Wilkes barre Coal 1 Swanst. 243, 251,
&c. Co., 9 Phila. (Pa.) 262; ante, * Aspen v. Rucker, 10 Colo. 184; 6877. 8. c. 15 Pac. Rep. 791. Or at the suit 8 Langdon v. Branch, 37 Fed. Rep. of a public corporation : Denver v. 449.
• Jones v. Macon &c. R. Co., 39 Ga. 138.