The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1897-02-10
THAT DlSPENSARY DECISION.
The Omnibus Constable Injunction Feat
ure Does Not Hold.

COLUMBIA, S. c., Feb. 1.-The State
authorities have found on examlna.
ton of the decision in the dispensary
case that the omnibus injunction
against constables Goes not hold. This
phase of the decision is brought out
in the equity case decided in the Uni
ted States Supreme Court. The decis-
ion requires Judge Simonton to mod
| ify his decree of injunction to con-
form to the decision, making it apply
only to the constables named. in the
original action. The State, however,
does not propose or intend to antago-
nize the principle laid. down it is
stated.
The ntiomnibus injunction prin-
ciple is said to be of much import, and
the decision of the United States Su.
preme Court says on this point: But
while we think that the complainant
was entitled to an injunction against
these defendants who had despoiled
him of his property, and who were
threatening to continue so to decree
in this case. The theory of the decree
entered in this case. The theory of the
decree is that the plaintiff is one of a
class of persons whose rights are in
fringed and threatened, and that he
so represents such class that he may
pray an injunction on behalf of all
persons that constitute it. 1t is, in
deed, possible that there may be
others in like case with the plaintiff,
and that such persons may be numer-
Gus, but such a state of facts is too
conjectural to furnish a safe basis
upon which a Court of equity ought
to grant an injunction.
We prefer to accept in this respect
the views expressed by Justice Mel
son, in the case of Cutting V. Gilbert,
Is Blatch, 259) Extracts are cited
from the decision. Similar views pre-
vailed in the case of Baker VS.. City of
Portland Is Sawyer, 566.) The decree
is also Objectionable because it enjoins
persons not parties to the suit. This
is not a case where the defendants
named represent those not named.
Nor is there alleged any conspiracy
between the parties defendant and
other unknown parties. The acts
complained of are tortious, and do
not grow out of any common action
or agreement between constables and
sheriffs of the State of South Carolina.
We have, indeed, right to presume
that such officers, though not named
in the suit, will, when advised that
certain provisions of the Act in ques-
ton have been pronounced unconsti-
tutional by the court to which the
constitution of the United States re-
fers such questions, voluntarily re-
frain from enforcing such provisions;
but we do not think it comports with
we'll settled principles of equity pro-
cedure to include them in an injunc-
ton in suit in which they were not
heard or represented, or to subject
them to penalties for contempt in dis
regarding such an injunction. Gel
low VS.. Fellow, John Chan, 25; cit
ing Iveson VS.. Harris, 7 Vesey, 257.)
The decree Of the court below shoulG
therefore be amended by being re-
stricted to the parties named as plain
tiffs and defendants in the bill, and
this is directed to be done, and it is
otherwise affirmed. Mr.. Justice Brew
er did not hear the argument, and
took no part in the decision of this
case, The full text of the decision
was given out tonight, but the ex-
tract given is the new and important
part not published heretofore. The
official dispensary bill will probably
be introduced tomorrow.-News and
Courier.