Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1885-03-26
1t is Tightening its Coils in
Iowa.
Saloons A5atable as NuisanceS
by Injunction.
An Important Decision of the
Supreme Court.
The Iowa Liquor Law.

Council Bluffs to the Constitution
saws the supreme court decided the
saloon case of Littleton VS.. Fritzs to-
day. The court holds that any citi-
zen may commence suit and enjoin a
saloon as a nuisance, thus affirming
the constitutIonality of the 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 a citizen of Polk county seeks to
enjoin and abate nuisance, which it is
alleged, defendant keeps and main
talks in Des Moines by selling iAtoxi-
eating liquors contrary to law.
A temporary injunction was prayed
and notice OF the application therefor
was served on the defendant who APP
peared, and the motion for an injunc
ton was sustained and the writ was
issued and served on the defendant
This appeal was taken from the order
granting a temporary injunction.
Judge Rathcock, who announced the
opinion, said the case turned upon the
question whether any citizen OF the
county where a nuisance of this kind
is kept, may maintain an action IN
equity TO enjoin and abate it, and
whether the court has the power
under the law to order tem-
porary Injunction. In such
cases, after citing the provisions
of the statute relating to the manu-
facture or sale Of Intoxicating liquors
as a nuisance, the opinion states that
this statute plainly authorizes any Of
ficer Of the county to maintain 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 NUS
ance is of very ancient
origin. The jurisdiction is
applicable not only to public NUS
anceg, 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 ana action of injunction to restrain
ard abate nuisances in cases where no
property iiEubS WtI0 liANOANNds a AAR
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 cognizance. Since the
adoption of the constitution jury
has been allowed for actions in d.
vorce, and this right has been taken
away. So IN the case of foreclosures
of mortgages and mechanics liens.
We are not then required to examine
the laws in force at the time the cons
stitution was adopted, and hold tAat
in every case that was then triable by
Jury the right to such trial remains
inviolate Such a construction OF the
constitutional provision involves too
narrow a view of legislative power.
IL being conceded that equity had jul
risdiction in the case of a nuisance,
we can see no invasion OF the rights
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
volved, is very limited and narrow,
and not well defined. The defendant,
in order to succeed in the defense
that the proceedings by injunction to
an attempt to enforce q criminal by
civil process, demands in effect that
the courts must establish the prnci-
pie that because the nuisance coma
planned OF is a crime, it IS eptitled TO
favor and protection in a court of
equity. Such rule would not com
mand the respect or approval of any
enc. 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
nuisance What we have said with
reference to the power of the legisla-
ture to enlarge the jurisdiction Of 4
court of equity will apply with the
same force to this objection. H. is
surely within the power Of the legis-
lature TO designate the persons at
whose suit nuisance may be enjuincd
ana ab4ted. The reason of the rule
which formerly obtained vas 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 being 50 we'll 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 ia bringing and maintaining
an action. The law having denouuc-
ed the defendants calling as a NUS
ance IN the judgment OF the law he
was that very day doing acts which
produced great and ifreparable injury
to the plaintiff and citizens; injuries
that in the Judgment Of the legs
laturr ought TO be enjoined and pre-
vented by action in squity. No earth
l.