, 1870-12-13
THE RAMSEY-ERIE WAR.
Dcrtafou oil the Now York Supreme
EouTk%

Frosn The Sttr lork 7intss, DIR. 9.
Two apre,ls. In ~ many actions. entitled
The Erie Railway Company rs. Joseph Il.
aamzey and others, 1aso just besn decided
j. Presiding Justice InGraban and Justice
-axdozo. The frat case was an appeal from
he order confirming the report OF the raferoa
ind impoeipg fine Of a6, 900 On Mr. Ramsey
oy Hsy OF punishment for contempt OF Court,
to1 disobedtenca of an injunction The eec-
,nd cass was an appeal from an otaer adjudg-
ing Ir. Eansey in contempt and ordering q
referee.
Tbs first action WIS brought for the pur-
POGO Of presen.ing the defendant Ramsay and
others from taking any further proceedings IN
an action In which Ramsay Was plaintiff and
the Erie Railway Company and others we're
and from any othes proceedings
IN any other suit for similar purpoee, ADD for
other relief. An Injunction vas granted re-
straining the defendants ''ftou proceeding
any further In the action in Which J. H. Rau-
eey uas plaintiff and the E1io Railway Com
pauy, J. Gould, Ard othera Hess dcfenl2urs,
and from ecmuencing auJ other action Tor
similar purpose. and from doing other mat
iera not material to be RETIRED 70 on this mo-
tion. This Injunction Was Hefscd On the de-
fent14nt Rann:ey, November IS, 1865 This
action was commenced in different dit
uict from that IN which tho former
action Vas pending. On the 4sh Of
December papers on behalf Of the plaintiff
Ramsey wero served on defendants' attorney.
including copies Of affsdavits. 10 order for
En-! etiluted service on souae Of the defendants,
1rd III order to show cause at Subsequent
day why tha order the1 1eafter granted ia the
ssrno should rot be continued. On the hear-
ing Of this motion the orders ankeu fn7 wero
Er.nted by the Court. On tho 9Th OF Doom
ber IN oFuer wna granted in this action re-
quiring Ramsey to chow cause Why lso should
nat ta punisheS for contempt, aad qu the
hes1iug Of that motion he uaa ajiudgsl guilty
Of a cont empt in disohe.iuS the injunction
order, aud a reference Has ordered to ascer-
tain the damages. 4 report WAS made hr the
plaintiffs were S5, 5,325. which report vas con
iirmed aud a fina to that amount WAS imposed
from which order tho defendants appealed.
IsoRAHAN, J P.-There are some propoai-
ttcns connected with the prpceedlnga to pun.
ish for asonsempt IN diaoheSins the onler ot
a eCutt which are we'll settle5, and Which ara
nfcess:Iy 10 right disposition Of this ap.
order eisobeytd il Eot to be reviewed on this
arFeal second. upon II notion to Puoi-l1
fer the violation OF the injunction, the Court
will not e1smire the merits Of the case, nor
permit defendant to dis obev an injunction
regularly issued, whatever mau be tha final
| til set aside bs tho ConEs, il tho Court hss
jurisdiction to grant the cn1cr- {9lh SeV
Iurk, p. 2G3.} Ii tho Court has IuIisdictioI
to grant the oraer,it il the duty Of tht
party to oboy it, and tha only reno
d the - pity iniurod 10 h,s Is is ,.: ::
These principles, which are we'll settled, tlla
pese Of 20 much Of this appeal - secks Il
reverse the order adjuagirg the defendsn
| guilty Of contempt, because the original ode
vas erronsoua. 7 on!y fe,nasns, therefore, II
| inquire whether the Court had Jurisdiction II
| grant The injunction. and whether the de-
fendant in the mellon to punieh him for con
tempt showed Any excute to relieve him frot
| puulebment- Tbs question OF Jurisdiction I
| gEnnt such an Injunction has been OK
| anined by the General Term OF this dis
ttics, In scheli IS. The Ems Ka:load CON
Pany. 81 Barb, P; 3es. There It va
ton Of this court forbidding ths prosecu
ton of another suit in the same cour.
was Absolutely void, sud that anybody nigh
| lawfully disreEard IT. But ut resent goners
term tho decition in this case was reviewed
and the expressions referred to weRe znoditIe.
20 a. to hold sush injunction mcrely frregu
lar; ard At the Present general term the In
Junction referred to had been vacated on ap
| peal a. irregular, and nat denying the jusia
diction OF ths court to grAut 1t in the hsHt in
stsrce. am also OF the opinion tnat th
| proof before the referee that the datendau
/
certainly competent to e1ve advice on which
1a3 man might rely, relieves the case from III
supposition that anF wiliul disobedionce q
the Injunction was intended, and il so. tbs
tue defendant vas not to tuffer positive DAG
sses for Lio disregard Of tho order. II b
waa Aable 1t 21, il waa for the cost
| necessarily incurred in an:orcin
obedience to the INJUNCTION. In til
present cate. the damages allowed appear I
have been the ccsta incurred in the actio
pending in the Sixth District, IN which prr
ceetipGs we're enioinsd- Such costs cou1
not be considered IN costs to bo paid in TIL
act.uu. Tue COTS which the defendant shoul
pay are tue costs and expenses Of prosecutip
for tbs contempt, and not tho:o incurred
the actien in which The proceedings were et
Joined. We think the amurns Of the fin
should be reduced to = sum sufficient to cove
tuch costs, md counsel fec, which a.o tixe
At $3.50. and for tL:t sum tho order
atirmed, without costs Of arpeal.
In tle other casa OF Tho Erie Rail = ay Cor
pany Is Joseph Fl. Ramsey It al, the Gel
e1al Term eay "t1e appeal from the order !,
Judging the defendant In contempt. and i
IectlnE = reference, Was rzeuaturelr take1
and should ke dismissed NTH ei0 COSTS