Arizona citizen., 1877-05-26
The Injunction DecisIOn by Judge
 French.


 The Injunction DecisIoG by Judge
 French.
 The application and motion is to dissolve the injunction heretofore granted in the above entitled cause, bv the Court Commissioner of this court for the county of Pima The hearing before the commissioner was an order to show cause why the injunc- ton should not issue; at this nearing the defendant, said secretary, appear ed and as cause made objections to the complaint of plaintiff. Such of these objections as were in writing, are filed Tn the proceedings before the com missioner and are returned by the com missioner with hls certificate of the proceedings, 10 the hles of the court. 4 great number of these objections are well taken and cause most ample, legal and decisive is thereby shown against the issuing an injunction on the complaint l am clearly of the opinion that the injunction should not have been granted on the com plant.
 \ suit may be brought by citizen, and in this respect Is rightly brought; {; but he must show some special right to be infringed or damage threatened, some injury peculiar 10 himself, as distinguished from other citizens of the community. lotto S. C, Rep. 3d vol lfth page. Linden in Sup. Ala meda Go 45 Cal
 The plaintiff does not do this. X complaint or other pleading should state facts only, not conclusions of law. The complaint in this case states no sufficient facts or equitable matter cntitling plaintiff to an injunc- tion.
 The injunction was therefore un- authorized by law. But il was elab- urately argued and insisted, on the argument of this motion, that the iu- junction cannot be dissolved at this stage of the Case, however granted, and have given this point much patient and labJrIous examination.
 At the hearing before ihe commis- sioner, the right 10 move for the dis solution of the injunction Was express ly reserved by the defendant, and filed, and the commissioner makes this res eryati)n a part of his record of the proceedings before hm.
 This reservation thus became a part of the proceedings before him and the injunction was granted by him with this reservation.
 The two California cases cited, both except from the rule there laid down, this right to move for dissolution of the injunction if expressly reserved. The language Is precisely the same in both cases, VIZ: The remedy '' of defendants, in such case, when '' the right to apply for dissolution upon the filing of the answer is not " expressly reserved, Is by appeal"
 Since the hearing before the com missioner and the granting of the in- junction by him, the defendant has flied his sworn answer in lhe case This answer k new matter and very matter on the question of sustaining or dissolving the injunc- ton.
 The two California eases before The Natoma w. * NJ Co. vs. Claikin ct al II Gal. 544, |. md same company vs Parker tai l6. Cal. s, which lay down the rule that he right to apply for dissolution of he injunction upon the the filing of. he answer is lost unless expressly re- served, are of greater force because made under statutes similar tO those of his Territory, and l have rccogniz d !. his authority in a former case. But n that case, there was no res rvatiOn . Jf the right whatever either express OrI implied, where thus right Is not re |. ,erved l consider those cases of high authority. Where 1t Is reserved, of l. ,ourse they cannot apply. But these . ;ases and some subsequent ones rec )gniZing this rule tO greater or less ,Xtent in the same court, are the only ,ases in the whole range and history ,f English and American chancery that support this pre- ;ise rule. The New York statute was imilar: both the California and Ari- .ona statutes being copied from that ,f New York on lhlS subject matter of Sec 1lS Comp. Laws A. T. Falkin- Jurg et al vS. Lucy 35 Cal. j2 The )racuce under same statute in New | ork, has been somewhat varied, de upon the fullness of hearing ,n the mCrlls-wEat new matter is, or $ offered to be set up and like matters.
 In all chancery cases, the bull and answer are not only the most con picuOus features, but matters of great st and most decisive importance in .very stage of the proceedings, and on notion to dissolve injunction, the answer is most important of all.
 The general rule and practice in the New ! urk COurjS under the same stat lJe as ours, Is well stated Tn the syllabus ,f the following case, viz:
 When any injunction is granted . on an order 10 show cause before answer, the defendant is not preclud-. !. 5 ei on the coming in of the answer from moving to dissolve ihe iniunc- ton upon the answer; although he appeared and opposed the granting the injunction upon the complaint . and the moving papers alone. IL. was the e, ,tablished practice in chan. cery, that the defendant might on the . coming in of the answer move to| dissolve the injunction, and the an- swer WIS a most important paper upon the motion, for if It denied the whole equity of the bill, it was the ' general practice to dissolve the in . junction. Supreme o. SD. T. 1863, . Hazard vs. Hudson River Bridge . Co. 2 How. r 296."l
 The defendant n this case, having eserved hIs right aS required by the California cases, had beyond all legal question the right under the decl- ion Of the courts Ot that State, md without this reservation of New York and other States where like tatutes to those Of Arizona prevail, 1,