The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-01-22
NOT QUITE so MANY INJUNcTIoYs.

On Monday last the proceedings Of the
Board Of Supervisors were brought to a
s.andstill in regard to the award of the
public printing and in regard to certain
street extensions by the effect of five in
functions sued out by the Superior Court.
The public viii bear in mind that as to these
matters the Solid Nine in the late Board of
Supervisors passed certain resolutions ard
orders which the public regard as corrupt,
and the present Board of Supervisors con-
slider contrary 10 sound policy, and that. in
consequence, initial proceedings were taken
by the present board to repeal those orders
and resolutions. The Superior Coult, on
the application Of certain individuals who
claim that they would be aggrieved by the
repeal, now steps in and eujoins the Super
visor from acting until cause is shown.
ne Id" VI '%5l'' e Iasr,uo if-snes-
sites which all can hppTtciate. 1t is neces-
sary that power should be lodged some
where 10 prevent the commission OF con-
t!numg wrong, and TO protect rights during
The pending Of legal proceedings. But the
Use Of The remedy should be carefully
guarded. The law clio Ties Judges with the
power Of issuing restraining orders because
II TeIies II their discretion not to abuse it.
nus the British Judicature Act, which con-
Soidated the English law and chancery
courts, authorized Judges 10 grant in
functions in cases when 1t shall pp-ar
10 the Court to be just and convenient" and
cur own Code pr ceduTe, Sec. go REQUIRES
mat before an injunction is issued the
complaint must show that sufficient grounds
exist therefor" These rules apply to per
manent injunctions. but the principle is
equally applicable to temporary restraining
orders. In single sentence the law ex-
reefs that before Judge grants an in
Iui. ction, he shall satisfy himself that some
wrong would be done TO some one, or some
rights would be infringed if he denied it,
NOW, III this case, not one of the plain
THIS IN the five injunction cases could reason
'oiy a'leee that he was yrOnged or his
rights iniringed by the resolutions passed
by the Board Of Supervisors. That board |
was certainly invested with the same nowar |
10 revoke a printing contract as its prede- |
cessor was TO make it, to repeal an order for
street extensions as the old board was TO
lass theorder. 1t was not alleged by any
eI tie plaintiffs that the present board was
incompetent TO fulfill lis duties, or that it
was ac ing contrary to law. Their conten-
tiop simply was that gain which they had
reckoned 10 realize out of the action of the
old board stood in danger of being taken
from them by the action Of the new. 1t ap-
pears To the public that their case did not
call for peremptory action by way of in
Junction, unless, indeed, Judge Hoge and
his brethren should hold that the Superior |
Court really administers municipal affairs
and that the Supervisors are subordinate
body subject to its control in matters within
their discretion.
The writ Of injunction is so useful a legal
remedy ID the proper cases that its abuse is
always a matter of regret. More than once
courts have abused it, to the public iniurv.
During the reign of Barnard and Cardoza in
New York, Fisk and Gould could get iniunc-
ilons on eX parte applications, forbidding a
man from doing any act which initiated
against the schemes of the conspirators; the |
consequence was infinite confusion. which |
in the Impeachment and removal
o1 tsIe corrupt Judges. Here only the other
day we witnessed the indecent spectacle of
one court enJoining another, and sentencing
Inc Other to pay fine for contempt This ia
wrong. The Legislature is now engaged in
setting limit TO the extravagant powers
10y Judges in contempt cases. It'll
10 be hoped that the Superior Court will mot
provoke legislation to restrain the power of
Judges 10 grant injunctions; for in certain
cases the remedy is appropriate and sanitary