The oasis., 1895-10-19


 by this injunction, but they also state 1 ln the same complaint that suits fOI 1 the violation of these ordinances are
 now pending in the district court ! against one of these plaintiffs.
 It Is not pretended that any remedy
 to which the parties to those suits are
 entitled will not be accorded them
 and the validity of the ordinances un-
 der which the suits are prosecuted
 cannot be tested in those suits. 1 An injunction will not be granted to
 to restrain the prosecution of suits
 before justices of the peace for viola | tiOn of city ordinances when com ! plainant may test legality and validity of the ordinances by a direct appeal from the decision of the justices. l High on Injunction Sec. l244- So it seems that plaintiffs not only have 1 but have avoided themselves of an adequate remedy
 l It Is well established principle that municipal officers will not be en- ] Joined from collecting fines imposed for the violation of municipal Ordin- ance until the validity of the Ordin- ance shall have been determined by proceedings at law: and all injunction will not lie in any case to prevent a prosecution either of a criminal or quasi criminal nature. High on h. functions Sec. l244.
 Even when q suit to declare brew cry nuisance was removed from the state Co the United States court on application to the United States court by the petition to restrain many criminal prosecutions against him be- fore certain justices of the peace for each separate sale of beer at it's brew cry, and threats to impose upon him heayy fines for said alleged offences was denied: Love, circuit judge say ing. It is alleged and no doubt truly that if the defendants be permitted tu yex and pursue the plaintiff with numberless criminal prosecutions be- fore justices of the peace and other state tribunals, the plalntitf will be compelled to abandon his business, and that his brewery property will be rendered useless and valuelesS. We are thus brought face to face with the question whether or not court of equity has any power Co interfere by injunctiOn or otherwise. with the en- tRAAGtithN hf itlt VI itliibal llNN VI tbN state That no such power exists that it's exercises has been de- nied both in England and this coun- try for centuries, is beyond question. Suess ys. Noble ct. al, Sl Federal Re- ports S55.
 The very grayamen of this proceed Ing is to enjoin the action Of the oiii- cers, whether de facto or de jure can not in this way be inquired into, of the town Of Nogalcs, for the collec- tion Of the licenses imposed by the corporation. These actions are, to say the least, quasi criminal in their return, and any interference with them, as we have seen, is beyond the jurisdiction Of a court Of equity.
 But the plaintiffs ask the court to 20 even still further. and in effect wipe out the existence of municipal corporation in this collateral proceed Ing, for if the court should restrain defendant from acting as common council, in compliance with the prayer Of the complaint, that would be the effect, as there arc no other persons to take their places, and the judg- ment of the court could make no pro V iNi0tl iOi JULIUS AN tfl ' Nlt Ait Dttoi ness of the town. It iS useless to cite any of the very numerous authorities the want of authority in a court of equity to do that until after a determination in a proper proceed ing to establish the fac0 that the de feudants were acting without the right todo so; and even then, pending such an action, the acts of de facto until their successors take their places, would of necessity, and upon principles of well established law and public policy, be recognized as valid and binding
 The motion to dissolve the iniunc- tion IS slanted
 J. D. BETuUNE, Judge.
 American M. r.. Church south,