The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-07-28

" this supervisory Jurisdiction Of chancery
" over courts of law amounts to In this
-" State. When, by reason of a defect In
" forms or power, the judge holdingsa
" county court feels that he must commit
" injustice, he may, on proper application
to him as chancellor, enjoin his further
proceeding in the court of law. We
" know the theory that 1t is the court of
" chancery enjoining the court Of law, and
-" we put 1t only in the personal form of
" the judge as chancellor, enjoining him
" self as judge, that the unreasonable and
" ridiculous aspect of the measure may be
"more apparent" Now If the extract,
quoted, was read by lawyer or laymen, we
cannot imagine the additional effect that
would have been produced, If they had, at
the same time, understood that it was
written, in good faith, by lawyer of over
ten years standing, who has, IL at oil, only
been out of active practice some three
weeks. Yet such is the fact. Does a
court of chancery,a judge..acting as chancel-
lor, or any kind of court or judge, ever at
tempt to exercise such powers Not at all.
Unless an exceptional instance or two can
be found in the dark ages, no instance can
be found in which judge or court ever
attempted to restrain himself or any other
judge or any other court, by an injunc-
ton. A court or judge never has been so
restrained, and never can be so restrained.
The writ or order of injunction was
stretched to the utmost tension in the Fisk
Gould-Erie railroad controversies, but,
even, there no such attempt was made, and,
it must, also, be remarked, those corrupt
injunctions were not obtained under COM
mon law chancery system, similar to the
one practiced in Vermont rtl
The truth is-and every lawyer and bust
ness man ought to know it-that the court
of chancery, or a chancellor does not
act upon any such idea, and no forced con-
struction of their powers and duties can be
distorted into any such nonsense. The
court of chancery for Rutland county, or
for any other county, or any chancellor,
can not, by all the injunctions in its power
to issue, restrain the Rutland county court,
or the judges thereof, from proceeding
with the trial of cause. The very theory
and basis of IN injunction is that the other
court has full, complete and perfect juris-
dction to hear and determine the matter
in controversy, and that it is their right
and bounden duty to proceed SO to hear
and determine it. An injunction is issued
to restrain individuals from invoking and
using the aid of the courts to accomplish
certain results which would be against
equity and good conscience. The court
can proceed with the trial, but the indi-
vidual does so at his peril. Notwthstand-
ing this, such nonsense rs that quoted is
used as sound argument why courts of
chancery, and courts having equity powers,
should be abolished us cumbersome and
ridiculous. We have said more than We
intended, but the proposition was SO ridicu-
lous and absurd that we felt it our duty to
explode it, that such opinions, through
silence, might not gain currency.
The only practical question which can,
possibly, arise out of the matter is whether
Vcrmont.is ready and willing to abandon her
present system of doing justice and obtain.
ing equity, and establish, in its stead, a code.
In reference to this question, we have, this
morning, only to say that the expense OF
liitioasou ir.all'v- York has hnen larqel,
tice are more complicated, cumbersome
and difficult to be understood, and that the
code itself and the reports upon mere ques-
tons of practice alone-that is the modes
and forms of obtaining relief, justice OF
equity-fill more volumes, averaging a
larger number of printed pages each, than
all of our statutes and reports upon every
subject put together, although their prac-
tice in courts has not been simp1Jfed by a
code but little over ascore of years.