New-York daily tribune., 1857-10-24

?, IL h. sl(ue - -, Csar, ,AsD bssin. ,h- dEtt
IN Of Ts 'ss 'i s,s ,s sS., cs
% '"se- 80 t-rc % fo'iv~ T. NoN aes e'
mo-, ,,.t. scseS,iS co pac..e..
Al h. ,e. b-'v..n parties fur TIE oc~ eenne~@
ID. III, 4 IL, r., 70 thee bos. 10 u al The ciJ
ts. hld them by Of j.. rer'Ap 'ss,
hvirs hen iousht sn5 raid To- win 10 fnd' snd ~ =.
has nee po.ion e ori ~ v''tu@ Of MS otc"
suG ell since 't- decision il hi. favor 10 thc rsUl"y Pro
ce,dtg he kus claimed thu 50 an sfue'oson q his rfe'
T. tbe srEuren' b. oppp-io7 TO t9' uo lot
'hsf The e,6E' in the suit or sus ia this Curt a. ta- nc
ibe ,ut IN the G. nuon Pes' use ~ec not SAT
treuv mr. efshe the Co'. g determ'ue rc
Whole nstt. courovefy am ret certain hs, si' te-
bot s net r'oe..sy Tor the pIrP."' iot weh snt
rr To fb.e suits that tsy should bSye eeon 10 pot st
t'pFt .ho~ o. " ths, .py tsG o. ~ IHs " w.
hsv, been all h. concerning the zane Subject m>ter
81 hs,s had q. .Ine .nss.ro,aa or tss ,
und 20 the books &c. srd on the 3ne te N, ae
on hs ,.s 'saT & b Uu's sS II .uy S. since se.ms
either side were not contaitrd in me ea.
,utr dnent or supplement- and their sb,eece furnished p'eS.
uec.sity for 'u and II II uS u oei'1'nv
Uirisled none for fyms 10 nee ronrt
IL quite evident from what has been said tns
this whole htsson shoud b. crswu to On. or he ooet OF
without derm.ut ,he public Interest. be suffered TO pro
ee be. sone1s step N ote Court ia one dreccn 'o
tbatm skcuIc g. arrested in one or the ether.
How hsl tbi. De ed, Neither Court VIII per
my. op+rne the before ard the
.d & .n S :" y St a s e
cases the measure Of fsu ar for that purpose
see why should not be adopted In this
IL va. urs,d on the srEuueu' hat njuncoos In such
cases hsd only been usrd suits in Courts Of sw aud
Ina. such femedy as to suits Of equity had no,
b'r sa pe in practice ard the fct must very much
HD, receuy instance has occurred In ts country or
tw Cours OF equity the State h.vns coocuIrec, r
otion in the csss OF the patce can
rtss D. in principle why of this kind Il sboul5noi ee
apple to Court OF equity, .. well ss 20 Curt 81 NN
doubt that Court e. equity would restrain proceed
jus. ..ss, its cers tor their oo. character
those proceeding. were u another Cont oay'os equ
sw pasors IL fr nstsuce recsver or gusrdisn, OF
se Of slunsc appointed in ore Of our Courts were
Or any other Court for his oco scs 10 there any
Souot hs the Court which he derived hs authority would
rjon such QUITS; ard would it MAGE any difference Whether
law powers or in one having common law power
only
Sc in the case OF Bill OF Pesce which this 10 all
.p c ver, much resembles there any ubt that il the suits
which would otherwise BE- proper restrain pendas in
W MD not for ,s i,a.on berestrsuedl IL thi. State
usc Courts have eqnity as well as common lay power,
the remedy known By that Dsme must be sbaudooed
certainly the suite to be restrained are 10 more tnAn one
Court.
And in where the restraint oi any
9th, s tbsr cause the which the .ut p-ud
rs lackee the OF administering Equity Restraint Tor
tLtt be required in sy.tem se ours where
al hoe powers The existence of equity powers
be vii do with the recesy ft such e'trant
IN large csss OF because the absence OF those
ots be- for restraining pTocced1gs in such
Court n around that the controversy could not prop'nJ
he end. and disposed e without the crcse OF those powers"
but Il cny Of that class that the existence o. equity
pw,rs the Courts is at all material or the qu-stiou
~hc'heT their prosecuon Of suits n the shall be ressned
spppose innce. that equity salt were commenced
IN Ills Court sesnst teI or twelve dtfndan aud one
dt'nd?nt tsVrz oc"ssior tor sthrit stNe trst wnSn
world poptrv sutho'ze the hIts OF er,ss 1 'poa,a p
sd u fin H. ene iai in 1fsHS M m Cur ad
shouc hi, the Cy Court of Brooh aud another ID ud
f In Court az New jersey aud snother IA Connecticut
al iho,e Cours having peDary equity well common
lsw who oon6t that some one ct tne Courts
ib. ~ the OH, Courts aLd draw the entire litigation to it's!
Who would s foDud TO ins tht the parties p n IA noLe
eT. ma, acd wfo would soeb which Court should i..ge
a'Ir a. ~ % ,Soubt.Sy tie %,s Of ast Va
wanting prove the neces.t, Of con6nins it
s tne - hsiSS P11s on 0 ts. co9r. ha smvc
power to dispose ct it legally and eguaoy Ssn,en -
srttcnty for. / weud eommeud this ease before me
an lluftraon never TO be surpas.td IL is n9t
s, ed RE .p,ian Of council 30 ssut in the suit ia
Common Pleas 10 tte tsnt We Quick appeared that
u had been brought b, Quick afnst Giant IN the Common
Pess 20 The surrender OF certain securities snd uao
he dsbd.rt in tie Common rle,sl suit ~ ,ne
bill obtained injunction restraining the suit
o1 as .sar F'' rS HS on no moi & val 81 b,
Dner ssy'Ds The Pior iu.tuunn OF that .ut tmeanins
deny are regarded by conclusive for granting
ihe Gon il its ur estnt" &c. Il MAJ ~ true. tha, al!
lie iet forth III sns~sr" SC "or VI e7ot,nsd there.
he ade the erour of the raive relief TO which
and cdneuye reply 'a,'s s, f. "AsO, ss ev ev
die comps amt in ,he Common Pleas in the
"oi q cro.s Ml ard ba, Cour' Will stay proceedings
be G,, '1 ut both are re at Issue so Ess T, both 5 my S
"n Iesi, but cne .ersy" "Ths prior jurisdiction
which hat Coeit has srquirtd have risht and viii
atm p to ji.tb Th conectne,s # tina. decision and Of
the pn ofrr Justice Dur in thst i never be que.
rf0 By The jad.s. u the apre%s cpU and
Con Pes." it mus. have been snd II !. had
bad snt W. what sppcars fully here that there was ct
irs,, ore .Uit psn5ing in thi. Court between the
be sroiher Of earlier date By the p,nta she
there, still peDdrg here or bad st been dcohtinaea
dec in adverse the plaintiffs sm sure tina. the
esrned first Judg Of tha. Court his decision would have
to the oPersons Of his mind IN language not
that Of Eloquent and venerable cotempoMy add
would mbr,csd the opportunity for affirming hs CON
uencs Of the principles Of eauiy & ana Nsr
Couu. proceeds
te ngt those books snd pspTs to the parties
Lere, Dvn Conoysr " by virtue of the deei.oo n the
statutory P'ccreaIg teuesn them' 'e' SaHda'a and na'
H. Tbst city b.. sht. to them ba' that thoss
sIg tl,9'il lsSs s1s i.sS sts. ''' '
i'll That to all the I,,ht. the city hes On h., srouna
1, we. bouud BY she deci.ioD therein as Pnyy
~ Ths IS 70 he sh' OF the CITY GinsI pssy ,a ees, b
,ec those hr Office and are only the re 'oe9 or "ns
., nav be- e serSis. able have been answered
v That riahts which, at most are nights 10 them
Connected wh the purpo.es Of Office they beog soOr
he rgtt ~ the Office consttute the basis ot no e
sn seGnt he Officer spd particularly OF meme al adverse
pos. ofthem to Testrct Of the use OF tnen py MN
therefore constitute against tie granting o' 'he
mott, fer al N jurCtion IA this case , .,...c.
VI oftissor this subject hat ths Coan
t .yit pse,sof Of the casits powers being aneq~'e
te ,b- adm usI arp of complete jnsce In the p'
sbouo jurisdiction and eonhne the hEf'on 20 'hs'
- A..
III Tlst ,gorts by either parry land particularly o me
rsy of the Court first IN p1sseNon OF sue
r,, 10 oiy,it the litigation another Court sooud Dc re-
,,rsir ed ard tht r that purpose 10 the usual
viii That II most especially the duty Of the Court not 10
r.ni, ,r.p,or fon il another Court BY such per's
adverse decision his ssn ia inc Nou1' W p
sort L. frat bed by him. . .r,. II e,. ,i,.
tx Thai tts practice 10 Courts Of Equity of conhnrs hasa
% r h-t 10 the in whirh II onginates 10 o pecu'
sr value IL tbs' u seem, es ss-C ~ oou
sfrcInal atmnistrat1n Of llstIcei an1