The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1897-02-09
AN UNPLEASANT SURPRISE,
An Important Part OF the Recent Dis
pensary Decision OF the United
States Supreme Court Which Es-
capped PubIication-State Consta-
bles Cannot be En.joincd as Glass.

The State authorities have found on
examination OF the decision in the dis
pensary case that the omnibus injunc-
tion against constables does not hold L.
This phase OF the decision is brought
out in the equity case decided in the
United States Supreme Court. The
decision requires Judge Simonton to
modify his decree Of injunction to con-
form to the decision, making it apply
only To the c0nsta5lcs named in the
original action. Tho State, however,
does not propose or intend to antago-
nize the principle laid down, it Is stat
ed.
The anti-omnibus injunction princi-
plo 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 do, we
are unable to wholly approve the de-
cree entered in this case. The theory of
the decree Is that the plaintilf is one
OF Il class OF persons whose rights are
infringed and threatened, and that he
SO represents such class that he may
persons that constitute it. 1t is, indeed,
possible that there may be others in
like case with the plaintiif, and that
such persons may be numerous, but
such a state OF facts is too cOniecturc.l
to furnish a safe basis upon which q
court OF equity ought to grant an in
junction.
We prefer to accept in this respect
the views expressed by Justice Nelson,
in the case of Cutting V. Gilbert @
Batch, 250). Extracts are cited from
the decision. Similar views prevailed
in the case Of Baker vs.. City of Port
land q Sawyer, 5GG). The decree is
also Objectionable because it enjoins
persons not parties to the suit. This
Is not3 a case where the defendants
named represent those not named.
Nor is there alleged any conspiracy
between the parties defendant anC
other unknown parties. The acts
complained Of are tortious, and do not
grow out OF any common action OF
agreement between constables arc
| sheriifs OF the State OF South Carolina
| We have, indeed, a right to presume
that such officers, though not named
in the suit, will, when advised tha
certain provisions of tho Act in Qucs
tion have been pronounced uncOnsttu
tional by the court to which the con
stitution of the United States refer
such questions, voluntarily refrair
from enforcing such provisions I; bu
we do not think it comports with wei
settled principles Of equity procedure
to include them in an injunction in ;
suit In which they were not heard OF
represented, or to subject them II
penalties for contempt in dsregarGins
such an injunction Fellow VS.. Eel
low, John Chan, %; citing Ivcrson vs
Harris, Vesey, 257). The decree o
the court below should therefore b,
amended by being restricted to tn,
parties named as plaintiffs and defend
ants in the bill, and this is directed u
be done, and it is otherwise affirmed
Mr.. Justice Brewer did not hear th
argument, and took no part in th,
decision OF this case.