The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1897-02-10
AN UNPLEASANT SUR
PRISE.
The Omnibus Constable In.
junction does not Hold.

Columbia, S c., February q
The State authorities have found on
examination of the decision in the
dispensary case that the omnibus ln-
junction against constables does not
hold. This phase of the decision is
brought out in the equity case decid-
ed in the United States Supreme
Court. The decision requires Judge
Simonton to modify his decree OF IN
junction to conform to the declslon'
making it apply only to the con-
stables named in the original action.
The State, however, does not pro-
pose or intend to antagonize the prln
chile laid down it is stated.
The anti omnibus injunction pr'n
ciD,e is said to be of much import,
and the decision of the United States
Supreme Court says on this point
.eBut while we think that the com
plainant was entitled to an injunction
against these defendants who had
! despoiled him of his property, and
who were threatening to continue so
20 decree in this case The theory
of the enteren in this case. The
of the decree is that the plain.
tiff is one of class of persons
whose rights are infringed and threat
ened. and that he so represents such
class that he may pray an injunction
on behalf of all persons that constitute
it. 1t is. indeed. possible that there
NAV be others in like case With the
plaintiH, and that such persons may
he numerous, but such a state OF
facts is too conjec.ural 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 V. Gil,
bert, Is Blatcb, 259.) Extracts are
cited from the decision Similar views
prevailed in the case OF Baker vs.
CITY of Portland 6 Sawyer, 500 }
The decree is also Objectionable be.
cause 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 par
Ties defendant and other unknown
parties The acts complained of are
tortuous, and do not grow out OF any
common action or agreement between
constables and sheriffs of the State
sofSouth Carolina We have, indeed,
q right to presume that such officers,
though not named in the suit, will,
when advised that certain provisions
Of the Act in question have been
pronounced unconstitutional BY the
Court to which the Constitution OF
the United States refers such Ques-
tiops, voluntarily refrain from enforc.
ing such provisions but we 90 not
think it comports with we'll settled
principles of equity procedure to IN
clnde them in an injunction in a SUIT
n which they were not heard or re-
presented, or 10 subject them to
penalties for contempt III ( disregard {,
inc such an injunction fellow VS.
Fellow. 4 John Chan, 25; citing I've
SON vs. Harris. I Vesey, 257. The
decree of the Court below should
therefore be amended by being re-
stricted to the parties named as plain.
tifs aud defendants in the bill, and
this is directed to be done, and it is
otherwise affirmed. Mr.. Justice
Brewer did not hear the argument,
and took no part in the decision OF
this case. The full text OF the de
cision was given out to night, but
the extract given is the new and
important part not published hereto
fore. The official dispensary bill
will probably be introduced to'mor