Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-02-18

TO licenses. Nannainus DclHR IL ichhN"l
at law. and the 9l4th section of the
United States Revised Statutes having
conformed the practice in the courts oil
the United States in common law cases
to that employed in the courts Of the
States in which they arc respectively
held. the statutes of Virginia which
take awav man6 anus in coupon cases
in the State courts take it away III those
of the United States. Hdrrey g. Blair
=. Virginia, Virginia Lac Journal,
400.
And therefore complainant. having
no remedy at law and being otherwise
remcdilcss. resorts to equity, and APP
plies here for what is known in English
and American jurisprudence as a man
dofory Injunction. which is the counter
part in equity of a mandamus at law.
Must we 60 into the elementary books
TO find warrant for such process?
Jeremy, in his Equity jurisdiction, >
saws (" An injunction is writ framed
according TO the circumstances Of the
case. commanding an act which the
court regards essential to justice, or
restraining an act which 1t considers
contrary to equity and good con-
science
The mandatory injunction may he in
the direct fom Of command, or III the
indirect form Of prohibiting the refusal
10 do an act to which another has
right. 1t may be used against public
officers. High saws, in section 1909,
1.-The preventive jurisdiction of equity
extends TO the acts of public officers,
and will be exercised in behalf OF prl-
yate citizens who sustain such injury at
the hands of those claiming To act for
the public as is not susceptible of repa-
ration in the ordinary course ol pro-
ceeding at law" Indeed. section 9I9
of the [. :. Revised Statutes shows
that the Federal courts may enjoin and
STAY the revenue officers Of the States.
Such was the express ruling Of the SUI
premc Court, as already quoted. in the
case of Board Of HqmddtioH r.
Nc Com6.
Itwere useless to cumber this opinion
with as profusc a citation of authorities
as might be made in support of inlunc-
tions. mandatory in character. forbid
ding public officers or other defendants
to refuse the performance Of duties
which citizens may rightfully demand
at their hands Very many authorities
for such process are cited on the brief
Of counsel for complainant, embracing
cases from the English courts. from the
courts of the States of this Union. and
from our Federal courts. and | need
not repeat the citations here. The
printed brief does not contain the case
of Brooke .. Martin, & Muniord. BOG,
in which the Virginia Court of Appeals
cnjojned He dcfeHddm IL permit the
complainant to have the benefit of a
covenant entered into by the defendant.
will add few citations from dcc-
,ions of the Federal courts. In the
case of Coc ~ Wilson r. The LoU,srdie
and NasLriHe Roilroad Company, 3
Federal Reporter. rs. Judge Baxter,
United States circuit Judge. issued an
order enioning defendant from refusing
to comply with an obligation arising
upon a contract. In the case Of The
Ucnce. aHd New OJic0Hs Rajir0ad
CowDaDy r. The 1tchjsou, TopeLa and
.SOHf0 Ft R0jiIOGd CoHpdHy. H. Fode-
raj Reporter. G50. Judge IIa,lct:. Cir
cuit-Judgc McCrary cOncurring. after
elaborate argument and an extended
citation Of prccedent-. made decree
of the same character. I'm the case of
The Baiimore and ohio Rdiirodd CoD,-
pa0y r. The 1ioms ESprcsS Company
% Federal Reporter, 4o4. 4 like in
junction forbidding the refusal of duty
cnjoincd by contract was granted.
Judges Bond and Morris sitting. These
and other like orders of Federal courts
in other eases had been pointcdly sane
toned by what the Supreme Court hal
said in the case OF B00,d ot Liqt"iq-
tim r. McCoWb.
In the light of all the authorities on
the subject. We do not think there IS
any doubt of the power Of a court of
equity, as a part Of it, general juri>dic-
ton, to grant injunctionS mandatory IN
character.
The real objection TO the remedy IN
the present suit, though not made in the
defence nor argued at bar. a. we
should have desired. Is. that in this
case, the preliminary Injunction i'cquiv-
alent to final decree. and that the
defendants are. therefore, deprived
of the benefit of plenary pro-
ceedings; which, in general, i, a mat
ter Of right. But this results from The
character and subject of the contract,
the benefit of which i, sought by this
suit. In making the contract of the tax
receivable coupon, the State virtually
waived the benefit Of plenary proceed
ings IN suits against her officers 10
enforce il. in cases wherein the
commences OF the coupons lS
not put in issue. This contract would
be worthless to the taxpayer If he
could not use the coupon at the time
the tax was due and if the right to
use it is denied him just when the col
lcctor applies for the tax under the
laws of the State, its value for that
purpose is destroyed. or by the use of
1t being postponed. is seriously i'm
paired. In agreeing that it shall be 80
used. it seems to us that the State has
waived her right to a plenary defence IN
all suits for specific performance Of
the contract in which she does not
deny the genulnencss Of the coupon.
! repeat that we should have liked to
hear argument on the subject. 1t was.
in point of fact. the real question in
the case. I'm the absence of argumcn,
we thought that the objection under
consideration did not hold good in this
suit.
The decree now entered will apply
of cOuISc only to the coupons which
are the subject Of this bill-$i. $50 in
nominal amount. believe that Judge
Bond has given restraining order in
the similar suit of George Parsons.
The aggregate amount of coupons in
yOlyed IN both is less than $4,000 in
nominal value. and these two suits do
not therefore embody in themselves