The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1897-02-10
That DtSPsNSARY DECISION.
The on.ni5us Constable ipiu0sslon Feat
urc Does Not Hold.

COLUMBIA, s. C. Ee6. The State
au;hori.leS have found on eXamIra-
tiou Of the decision in the dispensary
case that the omnibus injunction
against constaoles does not hold. This
phase o. the decision IS brought out
IA the equity case decided in the Uni,
ted States Supreme Court. The dscls-
ion requires Judge Simonton 70 mod
ify his decree OF Injunction to con-
form 70 the decision, making Il apply
only to the constableS named II the
original action. The State, however,
! does not propose ori1taGd to antago-
n!ze lie principle la!a down II IS
stated.
The anti omnibus injunction prin-
ciple is said to be of much import, and
the decision Of the United States Su'
preme Court says On this point: 'Bu:
while we think that the complainant
was entitled to 81 Injunction agalns!
these defendants who had deSpoiled
him Of his property, and who were
threatening 10 continue SO TO decree
in this case. The theory of the decree
entec ced in this case. The theory OF the
| dec zee is that the plaintiff IS one of
Class of persons whose rights are IN
fri oged and threatened, and that be
so represents such class that he may
pr:.y an injunction on behalf OF all
persons that constitute it. It IS, IN
deed, possible that there may be,
others in like caSa~~4tt:-s the plaintiff,
and >trs<s0cc persons may be numer-
Gus, but such a state Of facts IS too
coniecturai to furnish 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 Y. Gilbert,
s Blatch, 259) Extracts are cited
from the decision. Similar views pre-,
vailed in the case OF Baker VS.. City OF
Portland 6 Sawyer, 566D The decree
! is also objectionable because it enjoinS
| persons not parties to the suit. This
| is not 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 no. named
IL 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 conports with
well settled principles OF equity pro-
cedure to include them in an injunc-
ticn 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, 4 John Chan, 25; cit
ing Iveson VS.. Harris, Z Vesey, 257.)
| The decree Of the court below should
therefore be amended By being re-
stricted to the parties named as plain
tiffs and defendants IN the bill, and
this is directed to De 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 tomorsow.-NeWs and
| Courier.