New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-03-08

reported in 81 Barbour, 36S, Sohel had begun SUIT
In Now-York County and obtained an injunction from
Judge Barnard against the defendants Thereupon, the
Railroad Company brought an action against SGhol in
another District and obtained injunction restraining
him from prosecuting his New-York suit or from begin
Ming any othcr suit with like intent The circumstances
in that litigation were therefore, precisely like those In
Ero agt Ramsey, except chat tho action against sche
had some pretonse OF foundation the merits, which
that against Ramsey had not When 1t was brought to
the knowledge Of Judge Barnard that 1t had been
sought by action In another District to restrain schen
in prosecuting his action here the Judge stated from the
bench that be had been advised by majority
Of his brethren Of this District that such an
order was roid and4at he ought TO disregard IT, " Ihat
he deemed it his duty TO disregard IT," on tho grouhu
that "tho Judge who granted the injunction nau 10
authority whatever to tie up by stay OF proeeeusS
the judicial act OF coordinate Judge whenacting within
his juisdictional power"
And he did disregard the injunction on appear ~ 'no
General Term, Judge CardOzo wrote an opinion hoiune
that on injunction restraining the prosecution Vi "
in another District monster In JurSpruuonVv
and an absurdty which there Is no preeeuen' II %
books.p and was absolutely void, ana tnat anyOOu'
might lawfully disregardit" Judge
.Tbe idoa that n cause by such maneuvers as have
been res0rtod 10 here DO Withdrawn from one %
OF this Court and taken possession OF oy , "n
TINS one Judge OF the and no other poWer IN
practically prevent his associate from exetcisG, nro
judicial fncons that thus case may Pe .aS Sers tSat
@ ne ySrabe decision s about 10 be rendered by the
J5fe Who mn 10 that time had sat in the cause; aud
fbSf inns "a decision OF o suit may be constantly mdeil-
rit0y postponed at the viii OF ono OF TIC .iS
@ rsmaT,a6le exhibition OF inventive genius and fer
tlity OF e1pediens TO embarlass SUIT T lch ms
extraordinarily conducted hlsatlon ~, ms Se'S9pSu'
For these, among other reasons think the mJunc,,
ton absolutely void and no lmpe2eht 10 h9 oruer ol
Justice Barnard II Judges OF the same Court ln-
stead Of leaving each case TO its duo order OF pro-
ocedinRs' shall cOuntcnance Efforts to circunl.
vent and defeat tho orders and decisions OF
each other, tho Court itself will soon Justly
forfeit the confidence OF the public, fall into diSrepue,
ana its usefulness be seriously impaIeH, II TOT Wnoy
destroyed Such practice as that disclosed by TINS ut
the orders OF each other IN the progress OF SUIT con-
fess is new and shocking to me.
For any such wrong there are abundant means or
redress and 10 those unaded by Judges in such tfees
as have been attempted IN these proceedings everybody
should be left to resort"
How exactly the proceedings in Erie agt Ramsey, and
tho "maneuvcrs" therein here described. "with-
drawing q suit from one Judge and taking pos
session Of it by another" preventing associate
from exercising his judicial functons" "taking case
from Judge Judge, when unfavOrable decision is
feared from the Judge having possession Of it, "con-
santly indefinitely postponng case, at the win OF one
OF the ltigants;" "eXpedents to embarrass suit;
Judges countenanclng efforts to crcumvent orders of
each other "practees that shocking" such art-
fees as have been attempted" These expressions seem
have been written with especial reference to the
proceedings in the Ramsey case.
Judge Barnard cOncrred in this OpinOn-and yet when
the needs of Fisk and Gould require it, and Mr.. Field
asks It, he grants an injunction precisely similar to the
one condemned and dirogarded by HIMSELF except that
even IL he had the p0ver, the grounds upon which tho
injunction asked were utterly frivolous. Mr.. Field
therefore knew when he argued in favor of this inunc
ton, that it had been decided to be absolutely
void"
on appeal to the General Term, Judges Ingraham and
Cardozo decided lin October, 1870, that this injunction
restraining Ramsey's proceedings wrong, and that
according to the principles laid down in the schel case
no Judge had any power to prevent Ramsey from pro
ceedng in his Delaware County suit But this was too
late to do Ramsey any good as will be seen.
When we consider the want Of power in the Court
emphatcaly declared in previous suit in which Mr.
Field the counsel and Judge Barnard the Judge, and
the utter insucency Of the facts above stated and
when we further consider the abandonment Of all at
empts the trial. to make any proof of the facts
aeged- impossible TO believe that this suit OF
Erie ag Ramsey brought with any other intent than
that Of giving Judge Barnard control Of the main case
The point the thing just hereThe object to be at
tanned was the removal OF the cause into New-York
County, and its trial before Judge Barnard 1t de-
sired make the motion to remove before Judge Bal
conf He held no Special Term at which it could be done
until May 1870 which would bring the cause here just in
time for Judge Barnards october Special Term. Under
these circumstances the stays Of proceedings obtained
in the Delaware County suit could not be reied on.
They only extended TO the orders of suspension and not
to all Ramseys proceedings. They were, moreover,
subject to the control of the Judges Of that District and
perhaps they would not agree with Mr. Fields notions Of
Justice in this case They would not stay proceedings
| for year, and the would have been
heard on the merits before II became Judge Barnards
turn TO hold the Special Term in October 1870 But get
an independent suit, started in NewYork County,
matter on what pretense and you give Judge Barnard
the power regulating the proceedings in the main suit
and Keeping its progress suspended until IL could be
moved advantage into this district And Judge Bar
nard would do better than Judge Bacom. He would
I uf Int ALI
ings. And so an injunction was granted, which, If
sound puts the whole litigation OF this State at the
mercy of judge Barnard. is sued upon a note In
Bufao upon his allegation that judgment will be ruin
GUS to him. and that plaintiff is his enemy, and that
somebody is pretending to act for him in the suit Judge
Barnard stops tho litigation! Not only the merits Of
every action be subjected to the decision Of Judge
Barnard but he pass the right Of citizens OF
this State to sue at an
For il will be that this was not suit In Equity, to
restrain multiplicity OF suits at law, and TO gather into
one proceeding all the matters involved. twas suit in
Equity to restrain suit in Equity and not only the prose
cuton of particular pending suit restrained but
Ramsey enoned from beginning any other suit with
like intent. 1t was general prohibition against appeal
ing the Courts for protection No matter what new
circumstances might arise, outrages be commit
ted here was bar against any relief from the laws Of
the land. For the eniOining Of Ramsey from prose
| cutting the Delaware County suit and from begin
ming any other suit with the like intent, was not
temporary relief asked for in the suit of Erie ag Ram
sey. HlodS ne final relief prayed for Upon the three
allegations of the complaint Gnury TO the Erie Railroad
from the suspension OF Fisk, Gould COthe animus Of
Ramsey, and the alleged unwaTranted and colusye ap
pearance OF Runkle which last difficulty removed
before the hearing TO continue the Injunction, Judge
Barnard restrained Ramsey from proceeding In his orig
inal suit.
II these facts justified the injunction at the beginning
Of the suit then proof Of the facts upon the final
hearing would have justified q perpetual injunction
| against Ramsey to the effect. That is to say
whether Fisk Could &C., should be removed from their