Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1885-03-20
1t is Tightening its Coils in
Iowa.
Saloons Abatable as NuiSances
by Injunction.
An Important Decision Of the
Supreme Court.
Other News.
The Iowa Liquor Law

kEoKUK, March IA special from
Council Bluffs TO the Constitution
says the supreme court decided the
saloon case of Littleton VS.. Frilzs to
day. The court holds that any clti-
zsn may commence suit and enjoin
saloon as nuisance, thus affirming
the constitutlonality of tho prohibi-
ton law. The title and facts of the
case with abbreviated opinions are, A.
d. Littleton VS. Louis Fritz, appellant
appeal from Polk circuit court. This
is action in equity by which the plain
tiff citizen of Polk county seeks to
enjoin and abate nuisance, which it is
alleged, defendant keeps and main
tsins in Des Moines by selling iatoxi-
eating liquors contrary to law.
a temporary injunction was prayed
and notice OF tho application therefor
was served on the defendant, who ap-
peared, and the motion for an injunc
ton was sustained and the writ was
issued ard served ON the defendant.
This appeal was taken from the order
granting temporary Injunction.
Judge Rathcock, who announced the
opinion, said the case turned apon the
auS vi lu6
county where nuisance of this kind
is kept, may maintain an action in
equity TO enjoin and abato it, and
whether the court has the power
under the law to order tens
porary injunction. In such
cases, after citing the provisions
of the statute relating to the manu-
facture or sale of intoxicating lquSrs
as a nuisance, the opinion states that
this statute plainly authorizes any Of
ticer of the county to maintaia action.
and there can be no denial of the
right of action unless it be held that
the legislature had no constitutional
power to enact the law. The juris-
diction Of courts to abate nuis,
ance is of a very ancient
origin. The jurisdiction is
applicable not only to public NUS
ances, strictly so called, but also to
purprestures upon public rights and
property. This general rule is not
and cannot be disputed. LET it be
conceded, says the opinion, THAT
courts of equity, before the adoption
of the constitution, declined TO enter
tain an action of injunction to restrain
ard abate nuisances ia cases where no
property rights were involved The
Legislative history of this state, and
the jurisdiction entertained by its
courts, do not warrant the conclusion
that there is no legislative discretion
IN regard to what controversies shall |
be OF equitable cogni2ance. Since the |
adoption of the constitution jury
has been allowed for actions in di-
vorce, and this right has been taken
away. So in the case of foreclosures
of mortgages ard mechanics liens.
We are not then required to examine
the laws in force at the time the cons
stitution was adopted, and hold that
in every case that was then triable by
a jury the hight to such trial remains
inviolate. Such a construction of the
constitutional provision involves too
narrow a view of Legislative power.
1t being coneeded that equity had ju
risdiction in the case of a nuisance,
we can see no invasion of the rights
of the citizen by an act of the
legislature extending to cases
where its distinct property right |
is involved, and we may say here that
the distinction is thought to be made
between between nuiSances where the
property rights are and are not In
yoived, is very limited and narrow,
and not well defined The defendant,
10 order to succeed in the defense
that the proceedings by injunction to
an attempt to enforce 2 criminal by
civil process, demands In effect that
the courts must establish the prlnci-
pie that because the nuisance coma
plaized OF il a crime, ii is entitled TO
favor and protection IN a court of
equity. Sach rule would not com
mand the respect or approval OF any
one. 1t is further claimed that the
statute is invalid because it author
ICES an action to be brought by any
citizen of the county without showing
that he is especially damaged by the
nuisancs. What We have said with
reference to the power of the legisla-
ture to enlarge the jurisdiction OF
court OF equity will apply with the
same force TO this objection. 1t is
surely within the power Of the legis
lature sto designate the persons at
whose suit nuisance may be enjoin.d
ana abated. The reason of the rule
which formerly obtained was that
private action will not lie for public
nuisance without special damages,
was that to authorize private actions
would create a multiplicity of suits,
one bsing 50 well entitled TO bring
action as another We are
strongly inclined TO think that in this
case the decree for defendant would
be bar to any other action for an in.
junction upon the evidence of sales of
liquor within the same time as is en-
braced in this action. The plaintiff is
by law made a representative of the
public in bringing and maintaining
an action. The law having denounc-
ed the defendants calling as a nuis-
ance in the judgment of the Law he
was that very day doing acts which
produced great and irreparable injury
TO the plaintiff and citizens; Injuries
that in the judgment of the legis-
lature ought to be enjoined and pre-
vented by action in equity. No earth
ly power is able to repair the injury
which may be done by the mainten-
ance of the nuisance from the com
mencement of the action to the final
DEGREES, and for that reason, tenn
porary injunction is authorized by |
law. The opinion is very lengthy and
so connected as TO reader any abridg- |
ed report of il unsatisfactory and i'm
perfect, but the above are the salient |
points quoted therefrom.