Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1893-04-04

tse rsaas Substantially wuh Judge
tso ia the s,cascmrs case.

Hra.rp,,. phi,N April 4 The following
IL she tel text 10 judge R,ck'p daciaien
lie The Ann Aihcr contempt caseai
After rrciting tho iurisiiciionel facts
he SAYS.
Tho application for this order was
made ~ ME az Chambers in Cleveland.
late on Saturday night. March IL.
The situation SGT cut in the blll dis.
closed ap emergency IN which prompt
action Was necessary. had granted a
similar mandatory order I'm 1891 on a
bill for an injunction filed in this court
b, the Wheeling 4 Lake Erie railroad.
ard il was enforced with beneficial re
suits IA against engineers. iiremen and
trainmeu who had refused 10 handle
interstate commerce freight loaded on
cars consigned 10 various ports on Lakes
Superior and Michigan. The bill in
this case clearly entitled the complain
ant 10 relief as against the defendants
railroads who were threatening 10 refuse
70 receive or deliver interstate freight.
The authority OF the court 10 issue
such an order has been questioned. but
il rests on established principles In
Beadell VS. Perry. L. r. 3. Eq. 400.
mandatory injunction was granted on
motion OF Sir John Stewart. V. {.
In giving judgment in that case he
said: Reference has been made To a
supposed rule Of court that mandatory
injunctions cannot properly be made ex-
cept at the hearing of the cause. have
never heard Of such rule.
Lord Gottenham was, so far as |
know. the first judge who proceeded by
way Of mandatory injunction. and he
took great care 10 see that the party
applying was entitled TO relief IN that
shape.
In Coe VS.. Louisville & Nashville rail
way when application was made 10
Judge Baxter Of the United States su-
preme court at Nashville. Tenn. for a
mandatory injunction restraining the
defendant from discriminating against
the complainant's business in handling
live stock. and especially from inhibit
ing persons from consigning live stock
to compliments yards. that learned
Judge said: Ought mandatory order
to issue upon this preliminary ap-
plications Clearly not. unless the
urgency ~ the case demands il, and the
rights Of the parties are free from reason
aide doubt. The duty which complain
ants seek by this SUIT to enforce is i'm
posed and defined by the lava duty of
which the court has judicial knowledge.
| The Injunction compelling it's perform
ance pending this controversy can do
the defendant no harm; whereas a sus-
pension ~ the accommodations would
work inevitable and irreparable mis-
chief TO the complainant. The injunc-
ton prayed for will therefore be issued"
Ii is said the orders issued in this ase
are without precedent. Every just order
or rule known to equity courts was born
Of some emergency 10 meet some new
conditions and was. therefore. in its
time. without precedent. II based on
sound principles and beneficent results
/ follow theirenforcement. affording neccs-
sary relief 10 the one party without i'm
/ posing illegal burdens on the other. new
/ remedies and unprecedented orders are
not unwelcome aids 10 the chancellor 10
meet the constantly varying demands
for equitable relief.
Mr. Justice Brewer. sitting in the cir
cunt court for Nebraska. said: Il be-
lieve most thoroughly that the powers
J Of court IL equity are as vast and its
processes and procedure as elastic as all
| the changing emergencies 81 inrroas.
ingy complex business relations and the
projection 81 rights demand"
Mr.. Justice Blatchford. speaking for
the supreme court in Joy vs.. St. Louis.
i3sth L. 3. said: 1t is one az the most
useful functions Of a court Of equity
that its methods IL procedure are capa-
bic IL bssng made such az "a accomino-
date themselves 10 the development Of
the interests IL the public in the prog
ress 81 trade and traffic by new methods
of intercourse and transportation"
The spirit 81 these decisions has con
trolled THE court IN ita action in this
case. IL ~ not necessary for the y,ur.
po@es IL this case ~ undertake IN define
with greater certainty the exact relief
which such cases may properly invoke:
but that the necessities growing out ~
the rapidly multiplying interests follow
/ ing our extending railway business
/ makes new and corrcspondingly efficient
/ measures for relief essential IL evident.
and the courts Ia the exercise IL their
jurisdiction must meet the emergencies
az fast a. possible within the limits OF
existing laws. until needed additional
legislation can bc secured.
IL IL our duty - deal with the facts ~
these cases az they are presented The
parties now charged with contempt must
! be tried on the facts a. they have been
made 81 arp, ar and. having fully con
sidered them / conclude that Engifeers
+ Clark. Case. Rutger and Cnnley, and
their firenen ~ named. quit The service
- the Lake Shore aud Michigan Seuth.
err railroad nnder circumstances when
thes bad a right 30 do =, and that they
are not therefore Ia contempt n court
because a such eondnct sni they viii
he discharged
In reaching THE conclusion have
treated these eas%s - criminal IN their
character and given the acrueea the
benefit q the reasonahletioubt especial
/ ~ az "a the extent o. which they had
eunepiret % act eobcerfesiiy 10 quitting
services ~ . say 81 inlnre their emTioYe1
sn.3 al 10 snf.,rcing hoycDft An at
llea done ~ sn individual Ia the ever
~. q right nay - isvfal bni elsen
daEr - = nnmher eaBsriring g. fHiuEe
"a improperly infeescs saefhsr may ba
-~se-- sse4si aaA - nssyrs szn t.lcYss NAV