Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-01-02
INJUNCTION REFUSED
Court Dismisses Bill Intended
to Save Historic Trees.
JUSTICE GOULD'S OPINION
Grant Statue Commissions Conten-
ton Upheld.
ATTORNEY sYME NOTES APPEAL
Citation of Opinions by Other Courts
in Cases Where Similar Prin-
ciples Were Involved.
ATTORNEY SYME NOTES APPEAL

ton of the Crittenden oak. the Beck elm
and other historic trees which stand on
the site selected for the memorial.
The court held as insuperable the con-
tention Of the commission that Mr.. Syme
has no right to the relief sought because
the injury complained of, If such injury
exists, is one which he shares with the
public at large. The other numerous
questions discussed in the oral argument
Justice Gould says, need not be decided,
in his view of the case.
1t is universally held" the opinion de-
clares. that the complainant must show
special damage to himself or his property,
and where he fails to do this no equitable
relief will be granted"
An appeal from the order to be signed in
by Attorney Syme to the District Court of
Appeals.
Opinion of Justice Gould.
In his opinion Justice Gould says:
Where the injury complained of Is
really a public injury. and the right vio-
lated is public right, the general rule
is that an individual cannot maintain
suit for an injunction unless he suffers
special injury different from that suf-
fered by the public at large. An instruct
i've case in which this rule has been ap-
piled. and case which presents many
points of similarity to the one under con-
sideration. is that of the state of Oregon
eX rel. Taylor vs. Lord ct al, where 1t
was sought to enjoin a state board of
commissioners of public buildings from
carrying into effect certain acts of the
legislature providing for the construction
of an asylum and appropriating money
therefor. because Of the alleged unconsti
nationality of part of the act. This
case refers to the prior case against the
same board. reported in 26 Oregon. 205, in
w kiyp of ba RIGHT nf nriva q
individual to resort to a court of equity
for Injunction to restrain the acts of Off
Gals. this language is used: =
THE taxpayer must, however. pre-
within the ordinary equitable rules
which govern when relief by Injunction
is sought. He must show that some
act is threatened or imminent. which
will result in some material Injury to
himself, for which there is no adequate
remedy at law 1t is not sufficient
that he apprehends injurious conse-
quences. which neither actually exist
nor are threatened. Fanciful, specula-
tive or even possible evil results are
too remote and indefinite upon which
to call into requisition the restraining
process of a court of equity.
The complainant who seeks an injunc-
ton must be able to specify some par
tcular act, the performance OF which
will damnify him, and it is such act
alone that he can restrain"
Justice Gould cited the decision of
the court in the case first mentioned,
applying the opinion quoted to the case
in hand.
Disturbance of "a Right.
"In the case of Barrows VS.. City OF
Sycamore, $50 ILL.,, 5Ss; % L. r. A., $50,
which was an action tor damages for in
jury caused by an obstructed street, the
court uses this language: I'm all cases,
to warrant a recovery, it must appear
there has been some direct physical dis
turbance of a right either public or pri-
vate, which the plaintiff enjoys in con-
nection with his property. and which gives
to it an additional value, and that, by
reason of such disturbance. he has sus-
tanned special damage with respect to
his property in excess - that sustained
by the public generally In the absence
of any statutory or constitutional provi-
sions on the subject. the common law af-
forded redress in all such cases.
In the case of the Cicero Lumber COM
pany VS.. Cicero, 176 ILL.,, 8: AZ L. r. A.,
$50, the court uses this language: The
to be violated by the corporation or its
officers is public in it's nature, and affects
all the inhabitants alike, one not suffering
any special injury cannot, in his own
name. or by uniting with others, maintain
a bill for injunction. A private individual
of public trust without showing that he
will be specially injured thereby Where
no injury results to the individual, the
public only can complain
Applied in Other Cases.
"The same rule has been applied in
numerous cases where it has been sought
to restrain the violation of city ordi-
nances; it is universally held that the
complainant must show not only the vio-
lation of the ordinance, but special dam
age to himself or his property. and where
he fails to do this no equitable relief will
be granted.
Justice Gould then quotes the decision
in the case of Green agt. Mills SO Fed.
Rep, So. 30 L: R. A, 80. before Chief
Justice Fuller, sitting in the United States
circuit court of appeals. fourth. circuit,
when this language was used: THE
court has no jurisdiction in matters of a
political nature, nor to interfere with the
duties of any department of government
unless under special circumstances and
when necessary to the protection of
rights of property, nor in matters merely
criminal. or merely immoral. which do
not affect any right of property"
Tested by these principles this bill of
complaint cannot be maintained. 1t con-
tains no allegation that plaintiff pays any
taxes to the United States or that If he
did such taxes would be increased by the
proposed action of the memorial commits
sion. 1t sets up no property interest
whatever in plaintiff that will be affected
by such action.
Sentiment Not Considered.
ut does state that the destruction OF
the trees in question will entail loss
upon the citizens of the United States,
both from a sentimental and financial
standpoint, and upon your complainant as a
taxpayer and taxable inhabitant of the
United States Courts Of equity as stated
by Chief Justice Fuller, supra. deal only
with civil and property rights, and have
no facility for preventing loss from a
sentimental standpoint whatever that
may be. From the allegations in the bill
it is clear that whatever loss may be suf-
fered by plaintiff from a financial stand
point differs in nc respect from that
which will be suffered by every other tax
able inhabitant of the United States
Nor does the bill afford the court any op-
portunity for concluding that, from a
financial standpoint the action of the
commission will result in any loss AS
Stunning that plaintiff is a taxpayer. it is
impossible to conclude from the face OF
this record that his financial obligations
will be increased by the location of the
memorial to Gen. Grant in the Botanic
Garden rather than in some other. local
ity.
For these reasons the bill will be dis
missed -
Does Not Prevent Removal.
In the absence of a specific order of the
court staying the operation of it's order of
dismissal, when signed. the mere noting
of an appeal, it is said. will not prevent