The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-01-21
LILIHA STREET PEOPLE
WIN INJUNCTION SUIT

porarv injunction having GSeA s41AbCA
on the fling Of the bill
The defendant contends that equity
has no jurisdiction but that mandamus
il the ONLY remedy 70 enforce a sratu-
tory obligation; that injunction does
not lie TO enforce action but only TO
prevent injury, and that the statutory
provision fSee. $40 r. L. for forfeiture
of franchise. If it fails 10 comply with
the requirements of the statute, Is the
exclusive remedy. but that mandamus
would not lie because no duty IS I'M
posed by law TO run ears at any par
ticular time; that the law gives the
corporation discretion as 70 times or
running its ears and that If there Is
any reserve power to control the dis
erection it Is the legislature only and
not the court which can exercise such
power. so that until legislative action
neither injunction nor mandamus hes
The defendant claims that injunc-
ton win not lie upon the facts I'm
the case, because public convenience
means the convenience Of the public
under all the circunstanees-su ia
cilities as the traffic viii warrant, as
determined by the revenue derived
therefrom, and also because the court
viii not usurp the legislative function
and require any particular service
which is shown to be improbable TO.
the company, and, further, because
the case shows that no permission was
given by the Superintendent Of Pub
lie Works to change the switches so
that the proposed schedule could be
carried out. the application for an in
junction being therefore premature.
The defendants brief. while con-
tending that mo case IN the highest
court of any State or in the United
states Supreme Court can be found to
sustain the equitable jurisdiction in
this case" goes on TO state the rule
as follows: ~Our decisions are full of
expressions showing that equity viii
not interfere with the management Of
corporations or grant injunctions ex-
cept in clear cases and as a preven-
tive measure against action which IS
likely to cause frreparable injury" cit
ing Wundenberg v Martin. IA Haw.
167. Brown 7. Carter, 10 Haw. $50.
On the point that equity has no jul
risdiction the defendant relies espe-
ciaiIy upon Shackley Y. Eastern r. r.
Co. IS Mass. 80. In that case the
railroad company had become the own
er OF the South Reading branch rail-
road under a statute which required
il to run daily a freight train and
four passenger trains over that road
so as 10 furnish reasonable accom-
mediation TO the public generally and
the business along the line Of said
road The plaintiffs brought q petit
ton for an order to require the re-
spondents TO comply with the statute,
alleging that although public conve-
nienee and necessity required running
of the freight trains. the respondents,
although often requested, had refused
for ten months to do so, TO the great
and unnecessary delay, expense, ineon-
venience and damage of the petition
ers and of the public generally in
the transportation of their freight
along the line of this railroad The
case was treated as a proceeding on
the equity side of the court, the re-
spondents demurring. alleging as one
cause of demurrer that the petition
did not show that the petitioners had
such an interest as entitled them to
maintain IL. The petitioners relied
upon a statute providing that in case
of disagreement as to what might be
considered reasonable accommodation
to the public, the Supreme Court upon
application of any person interested,
might appoint commissioners 70 settle
the disagreement and investing the
court with full equity power TO en-
force the provisions Of the statute.
The court held that the only right
given by the statute was to apply 20
the court for appointment of commits
sioners 10 settle any disagreement as
TO what may be considered reasonable
accommodation, and that the portion
of the act which invested the court
with equity powers to enforce its pro-
visions left the parties and the mode
of proceeding to be regulated by the
ordinary practise of chancery, and
that ANY suit TO compel the per-
Torrance Of a corporate duty in which
the petitioners show no interest diff
ferent from that Of the whole public
should be brought in the name of the
Attorney General and can not be main
tanned in the name of these petition
ers,r' and, further. that 1T would
seem that no relief could be afforded
in equity for the cause stated in the
petition either at the suit Of indiTid-
uaIs or of the Attorney General rep
resenting the commonwealth: but that
the only remedy would be at law by
mandamus. indictment or other ap-
propriate process or by proceedings 10
annuI the respondents charter or
franchise citing Attorney General v.
Birmingham Ry. Co. 4 DEG. & s. 90:
3 NJ. & G. 453: People V. Albany &
Vermont F. r. Co. - y Y. PSI
In the former Of these cases q rail-
way company. formed in 1876 for the
purpose of ma king q railway from 4
to r with diverging line 70 c, had
IN June, 1851. nearly completed TIE
line from 4 TO B. but had taken no
steps TO construct the diverging line.
The Attorney General. at the relation
Of certain parties claiming 70 be in
terested IN the diverging line, fled an
Information To restrain the company
from opening the line from A 70 3 ex-
cept with the intention of completing
also the diverging line 1t was held
upon demurrer that the neglect TO
complete the whole line could not be
regarded IN the light Of a public in
jury 50 as 70 warrant the interior