The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1852-02-18
Reported for the Miners Express.
DUBUQUE COUNTY COURT:
Jan. 81, 1859.
James Johns. \

Peter c. Hartelman. and Receiver
James Johns filed his petition in the Cou ,ty
Canrt, addressed to VIM. Y. Lowell, County
Judge, &c, stating that about Christmas, 1851.
he and Hartelman purchased threshinu ma
chine OF Wesley Il Barnet, Of Racine, and gave
their JOINT notes, due in one year, which sum is
yet unpaid. That the machine was purchased
to thresh in the neighbnrhnod where they lived,
that accounts had accrued 10 them for such
ihreshing. That Harielman now refused to
thresh any m re, and was trying to sell his in
terest in the machine-collect the accounts.
aid leave Johns to pay the notes when present
ed, and prayed an Injunction and Receiver
The petition was sworn to before D. S. Wilson,
Esq, as notary public whose name appeared as
one OF plaintiffs aitornies, in the cause, endorsed
on p-tit on.
On Goth Jan. 1852, the County Judce allow
ed an Injunction and also appointed George l.
Nightingale receiver and directed Office on Har
lehman for 3lst inst to sh w cause before him
why writ should not he continued TO next term
OF District Court. On the appearance of the
parties before the County Court on this notice.
at the suggestion Of the Judge, on inquiry what
tees II any were payable, the question OF ur;s
diction was raised The plaintiff by his conn
sci urged that the proceeding vas proper. and
that this Court ha complete jurisdiction to is
SUE an injunction in al cases, where it was
shown by petition 10 the Court, that party had
reason 10 fear an injury from the wrongful act
OF another, as an independent proceeding, and
that in this respect, the powers OF this Court we
similar to cases of Habeas Corpus, &C.. and
sahat the suit being thus properly here, the court
could require the statue fee. On the contrary,
h" defendant by his counsel objected tina, this
nr,Rn N ItS T. I
void; this court having power to entertain
this petition. could of course ch,rge no fees -
that the course for The plaintiff was to direct
his clifton to the District Court, and on such
petition this Court could entertain motion for
an injunction during vacaiion-and tor this pur
pose the county Judge only acted as substitute
fnr the ID strict Judge at chambers That on
fling this petition with the Clerk Of the District
Court, the usual fees would be to be paid
That this ceurt can in like manner, entertain a
motion to dissolve, but in all other respects the
whole proceedin IS must be in the District
Court That this is fully apparent from the
provision that an issue may be raised on an an
swer, which shall be tried as in other cases, aud
on such trial, when practicable, the whole mt.
ter shall be disposed of connected with the in,
junction and complete Justice administered to
all parties; all Of which this court had no power
tn do.
On amusement the court decided that this
proceeding was proper, and the court had juris
diction on this petition. That this court couln
grant an injunction as an independent means #
ret'ef, without any proceedings pending in the
District Court, and that if an issue arose upon
an answer OF defendant t. petition filed here,
trial could be had thereon in this court, and
that it had full jurisdiction to exercise all pow
ers necessary to comply with the provisions Of
the Code under this head. That this being a
suit thus properly here, the plaintiff should pay
the fee provided on commencing suits
Defendant then further objecteds that this pc
titi"n was not properly sworn to, as an Attorney
in cause could not act in the same cause as a
notary or commissioner to take the affidavit o
his client to any proceeding therein. Which
objection was also overru!ed by the court, and
the defendant was required TO show cause against
the petitipn..t.- ~
+, s & D. S. WILSON, and G. l.. NlcHr1s.
GALE, Plaintiff
JAMES BURT, for Defendant.