Case ID: ohio-st_25/html/0278-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By.the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Q. Riddle et al. v. Gilman Cheadle.
    In an action on an injunction bond, the plaintiff can not recover for attor- ' neys’ fees in the original case, except those paid for services rendered in efforts to dissolve or modify the provisional injunction, or otherwise occasioned by its allowance or subsistence.
    Motion for leave to file a petition in error to reverse the. judgment of the District Court of Eulton county.
    ' This was an action upon an injunction bond, and the-only question is whether the plaintiff in the action was entitled to recover for attorney’s fees paid by him in the case in which the injunction was allowed. That case was an action by Riddle against Cheadle, to enjoin the latter from completing a building then in process of erection by him,, upon what Riddle claimed to be a public or common alley,, and to recover damages occasioned by its partial erection» Riddle obtained a provisional injunction, restraining Cheadle from proceeding with the building until the final hearing, •and upon its allowance executed the bond in suit, which is. in the usual form conditioned for the'payment of all damages caused by the allowance of the injunction, in case it should be decided finally that the same should not have been granted. Cheadle employed counsel and defended the action, but no motion or effort was made during the pendency of the suit to dissolve the injunction, and no additional services of counsel were rendered necessary, or were procured or paid for by Cheadle, on account of the allowance or pendency of the injunction. At the final hearing the injunction was dissolved, and Riddle’s petition dismissed.
    On these facts the Common Pleas held that Oheadle was not entitled to recover, in his action on the bond, the attorney’s fees paid in the injunction case, and gave judgment accordingly. The.District Court reversed this judgment ; and it is claimed that the judgment of reversal is erroneous.
    
      Kent, Newton § Pugsley, for the motion.
    
      Rodney Foos, contra: 2 Am. Law Reg., N. S. 546; 45 N. H. 524; Corcoran v. Judson, 24 N. Y. 106; Ryan v. Anderson, 25 Ill. 372; Noble v. Arnold, 23 Ohio St. 264.
   By.the Court.

We think it plain that the District Court erred. The case is within the principle of the decision in Noble v. Arnold, 23 Ohio St. 264, from which we are not disposed to depart. No additional attorney’s fees were rendered necessary by the allowance of the injunction. All such fees paid would have been paid if the injunction had never been allowed. They can not, therefore, be said, in the language of the bond, to have been “ occasioned by the injunction.”

Motion granted and judgment reversed.