The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-02-26

and e1tner received the concurrence OF the Mayor
on his dissent, has been reconsdered and passed by
the two Boards. That is effectual and binding as
any law Of the corporation. How far the Mayor
might still be considered necessary part agent,
or actor in the transfer SALE or conveyance OF the
private property OF the city and the corporation,
considered private corporation, il is not neccs
sary here 10 discuss, though il would seem to me,
looking at the whole form OF this amended charter,
their property they would have to go through pre-
cisely the same legislative forms that they
PEELED to go through in regulating the public
Germs OF the city; and that may may not be COR
rect, when you come to examine the subject in its
bearings upon that point The next difficulty in onr
way as to this resolution is that 1t was void and in
operative, because it has not been passed regularly
by Board of Aldermen, at regular meeting; and
that objection is founded upon this
Judge STRoNG-I think it will be unnecessary to
discuss that point.
Ex-Chief Justice JoNEs-very well, sir. The next
point, then is, that this grant is void because
another court-the Superior Oourt-has grant
ed injunction, as it is said, prohibiting
the two Boards from passing that resolution and
that they passed it in disregard Of this injunction,
and that the resolution thus passed is for that
son, void The whole Of the authorities as | under
stand upon that part OF the subject drawn from
the acts of the Legislature, and an authority which
refers specially to these acts and which is to this
effect: That injunction is binding upon the party
to whom it is addressed and that the violation Of it
is not only contempt of the court which issued it,
but is misdemeanor, punishable by Indictment.
Now, if the Court please, any act or order OF court
and apprehend there is no distinctiOnin substance
between the present order Of injunction, as it is call
ed, in being an order Of the court and the old writ
OF injunction which, issued by the direction and under
the authority Of the c0ur-n the court which issued
that injunction, rests the punishment OF the violation
oft They have that subject before them, and If they
think that order has been disobeyed contumeliOusly
without cause, and without reason or excuse, why
they regulate the punishment accordingly. The
statute has given further consequence to this act
as against party who violates that injunction, VIZ.
that he may be indicted as for misdemeanOr; and
this is the whole extent and consequences Of such an
injunction given by the laws Of the State, and
am little at loss to see in the absence OF all
authorities single case ever adudged that an act
could not be valid and passing privileges Of any kind
to anybody and becomes Intellectual and imperative,
because it has been done in violation of an order OF
any particular court To expose myself to an indict-
Of the court. But disregard all that and the ques
ton is, what is its effect upon an act that party
enjoined goes on to commit? Now, upon that sub
ject one of the cardinal rules which l have under
stood to prevail from the origin Of our laws is this:
that court never regards or looks to the orders
and injunctions Of another. They do not know what
the other court does. And the document produced
by my associate Of the bill before the Parliament of
England-now in course of enactment, l believe
where the Parliament did lay down. for the first time,
the rule that carried the effect Of the injunction be-
yond that and states in note to it, in terms that at
common law the effect given by that act Of Parla-
menL would not from tlc DreACn Oh we pro-
duce no authorities, because it is the first time,
believe that the question has been seriously put
to court, that the act which has been done in vo-
lation Of the injunction, or in breach Of it, If you
please, is in itself for that imperative or void
that it will be taken notice Of anywhere else than
in the court where the act itself was done and if that
court has any power the subject, it is but new
exercise OF power in compelling the party, If ne has
the power to do it, to undo the act that he has done
There are cases which 60 to that length in the
party who issued that injunction. For example, an
him from erecting building, and he goes on and
puts story there, the court have, believe, upon one
OCCASION held that they might direct him to take down
that story thus erected in violation of the injunction.
How far that court in issuing an attachment, would
possess any such powers, or to what extent they
could carry them, is not for me to examine or con.
slider; but should very much question whether they
could do anything further than to prevent the final
action of thing still in feri. But certainly no
the subject or undertake to reverse what had been
done, merely because it was done contrary to the
order of another court. But in addition to all that,
we apprehend that this Injunction, in the Superior
Court far as it could be construed to apply to the
action Of this Common Council, and these two
Boards, was wholly in itself imperative and uiwar-
ranted by the jurisdiction of that court. It will be
necessary if the Court think, in any point Of view,
any stress could be laid upon this objection or any
weight given to it, for me to examine that question
This is in connection with part Of the subject
was last considering, as to the effect Of the disobe
dence of an Injunction upon acts done which it pur
ports to forbid. 1t is the of Kelley and Marcy
against Cowan, 4th Hill, 1885, the opinion in which
case will be found at page 268, and which was de-
livered by Judge Nelson.
ITO be continued on Monday.1