The San Francisco call., 1896-03-13


erty as we'll as real property; for the plaintiff
therein seeks to have Claus Spreckels account
for and pay over all moneys received by him
as rents, issues and prontS OF certain land
since a certain time.
For the purpose of ascertaining whether or
not the facts alleged in the complaint are suf-
flcient to entitle the plaintiff to the relief for
which he prays, reference will now be made to
several well-known and interesting cases that
aptly bear upon the subject.
Precedents in the California Reports.
In the case of lie Breton VS.. Superior Court
(66 CAL, 27), the petitioner prayed for the
issuance of a writ of prohibition against the
Superior Court of this City and County for the
purpose of arresting the proceedings of the
court in the case OF Barroilhet against said
petitioner The Supreme Court in effect says: !:
It contended that the object Of Barroilbet's
suit is to reach personal property as well realty
and that In such there is concurrent juris-
diction created by law IN the court OF the county
in which the defendant resides. The prayer of the
complaint against lie Breton is that account be
taken of and concerning certain trust and OF the
advances of lie Bretons eStator and that the trust
be executed by selling land subject thereto, ETC.
We find that it was proceeding to enforce trust
on both personal and real property. The suit was
brought in the country in which the administrator
resided, and we have no doubt the Superior Court
OF that county had jurisdiction as the plaintiffs
the trustee And this, although the lands lie in O
foreign jurisdiction.
In Dinsmore VS.. Nerenheimer go Hun, 2O4)
injunction was prayed for in New York to
restrain the prosecution OF two suits that has
been brought in the District of Columbia, in
order to avoid the decision of the Court of APP
peals of that State, and TO take advantage OF a
decision 10 the contrary made by the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia. Injunction
was issued.
Location Of Property Does Not Deter Action
The court says:
The suits brought in the District of Columbia
were commenced by resident citizen of this
State to enforce measure of liability which, un-
der the facts as they had been made to appear
would be inequitable and oppressive and in VIOLA
tlon OF the restraints contained in the contracts
voluntarily entered into and accepted. This sub
iect very thoroughly examined in Dehon vs.
Foster "A Allen, 545), and it held there that
Injunction ought TO issue to restrain resident
citizens there from doing acts abroad which would
work wrong and injury TO others, and are there
fore, contrary equity and good conscience.
In Great Falls Manufacturing Company VS..
Worster (23 New Hamp., 400, decided in
1851, the court says:
1t would be q great defect in the admin
of the law if the fact that the property was
out of the State could deprive the court Of the
power act. AS much injustice may be done in a
given against the citizens OF this State by 60
ing out of the jurisdiction and committing wrong
by staying here and doing 1t. The injustice does
not lose it's quality by being committed elsewhere
than in New Hampshire. and the Legislature
iniunctions whenever il Is necessary prevent in
jury it is the duty of the court to exercise that
power upOn the presentation of proper case, and
when it be done consis emily with the acknow-
edged practice in courts ot equity AS the principle
which is sought TO be applied here has been recog-
nized for nearly 200 years, we have no hesitation
in holding that the court has Jurisdiction to issue
the injunction prayed tor
These Are Exceptions to the Rule.
In Claflin g. Co. VS.. Hamlin (67 How. Pr,
294) the court says:
1t has been held by this court that while as a
general rule the courts this State will decline to
interfere by Injunction to restrain its citizens from
proceeding in action which has been COM
menced in the courts sister State there are ex-
ceptions the rule and that where case is pre-
sented squarely constituting such exception ex-
treme delicacy should not deter the court from
controlling the conduct of party within its juris-
diction TO prevent oppression fraud, and that
rule OF comfy or policy forbid it. The affidavits
in Illinois not brought in good faith, but
brought for the purpose of vexing, annoying and
haraSsing the plaintiffs in this action, and that
therefore the preliminary Injunction granted should
be continued until The case can be tried.
AS to the inherent general powers of courts
of equity our Supreme Court says (Merced Min
ing Company VS.. Fremont, Cal, 317):
In reference to the subject OF injunctions the
writer (Justce Story. after stating that they
"are now more literally granted than in former
times" makes these practical and iudicious re-
marks: at may be remarked, in conclusion, upon
the subject of niunctions, that courts of equity
constantly decline to lay down any rule which
shall limit their power and discretion to the par
ticular cases in which such iniunctions shall be
granted or withheld. And there is wisdom in this
for Ii is impossible to fOreSee all the ext
gencies of society which may require their aid and
assistance protect rights and redress wrongs
The jurisdiction of these courts thus operating by
way OF special Injunction, is manifesty indiSpensa-
Bile for the purpose OF social justice In great
rety of cases, and therefore should be upheld by
steady coincidence"
II is the boast OF the common law as OF every
other system of enlightened jurisprudence, that
the principles, when legitinately applied, viii af-
ford redress for every substantial injury. Ana
especially is IL the distinguishing characteristic Of
equity that while its rules are certain its expansive
nri ara Nv0 1hpoN aQ11 rnyx-
cases. The circumstances may be new, but there
is always some known principle or new com bina
ton OF known principles applicable to it. Law, in
fact, IS out the rules OF common sense, and the
principles of Justice applied circum stances
ground that OF equity have wisely refused
lay down any limits to their right TO grant special
Injunction The right must be exercised with due
caution, but it must be exercised in proper cases.
Facts Assumed by the Court.
And now. in determining whether the de-
fendants demurrer should be sustained or
oyerruled the court must assume, in the face
OF the admitted facts, that the land in contro-
versy IS not held by the plaintiff in trust for
the defendant corporation, and hence that
there occasion for said corporation to
commence its aforesaid action against plain
tiff; and that IN the light of all the circum-
stances and facts as alleged in plaintiffs COM
plaint, the said corporation ought not in equity
and good conscience to be permitted to main
tain and continue its aforesaid action in the
courts of the republic OF Hawaii.
The Preliminary Injunction Continued.
Hence, it is the opinion of this court that the
preliminary injunction heretofore granted
should be continued in force until by the trial
OF the cause it shall have been determined
evidence then adduced may justify the court
in permanently enjolning the defendant from
prosecuting the Hawaiian suit,
Accordingly the demurrer is overruled, with
leave 10 defendants to answer within ten days
and the motion to dissolve the temporary in
junction is denied. JAMES M. TROUT, Judge.
Dated March II, 1896.