Decorah public opinion. (Decorah, Winneshiek County [Iowa]) 1895-1928, 1911-12-13

jurisdiction and will never enjoin
combination to commit crime SIM
ply for the purpose of preventing a
crime Vol. 5, page 791, edition of
1905 of Pomeroy's Equity Jurispru-
dence, paragraph 467, states: Grim
inal acts in general" "A court of
equity is in no sense a court of
criminal jurisdiction. It's primary
province is the protection of prop
erty rights. Hence an injunction will
not be granted to restrain an act
merely criminal, where no property
right is directly endangered thereby.
Thus an act morally wrong, such as
gambling, will not be enjoined as
the suit of the individual, nor will a
violation of a Sunday law, nor vio-
lation of a statute, where no prop
erty rights are involved. But where
property rights are endangered, the
fact that the acts are criminal will
not prevent this court from eXercis-
ing it's jurisdiction"
The United States Supreme Court
in a leading case has laid down the
rule as follows: Something more
than the threatened commission of
offense against the laws of the land
are necessary to call into exercise the
injunction powers of the court.
There must be some interference,
actual or threatened, with property
or rights of pecuniary nature, but
when such interferences appear the
jurisdiction of a court or equity
arises, and is not destroyed by the
fact that they are accompanied by
or are themselves violations of the
criminal law.
The Supreme Court of Iowa has
recognized the rule that an injunc-
ton will lie in the case of Ewing VS..
the City of Webster City in 1913 Iowa,
pages 206 to 230, where the Court
says: There are cases where
court of equity will enJofn an act
which would cause irreparable in
jury. Thus an injunction would is
sue to prevent the unlawful destruc-
ton of trees, on the ground that
they could not be replaced, and that
the benefit the owner would derive
from them cannot be accurately
measured from a pecuniary stand
point" And in quoting in the opin-
ion of the Supreme Court of Massa-
chusetts it is said, "A continuing in
jury to property or business may be
enjoined, although it may be punish
ed as a nuisance or a crime"
The Supreme Court of Iowa in
Bear VS.. the City of Cedar Rapids,
147 Iowa, 341 to 351 states: This
is day of prevention, preventative
medicine, preventative law and pre-
tentative Jurisprudence.
/ therefore conclude that the acts
of the defendant are unlawful, inso-
far as they attempt to use its mem
bers as a means of compelling plain
tiff to contribute to the expense of
managing it's business as a condition
upon which such members may sell
stock to him and in the nature Of a
conspiracy we'll calculated to prevent
the free action of competition in the
buying by Reeves and the selling by
the owners of hogs and in the re-
straint of trade and we'll calculated
to infiict irreparable injury upon
him.
A writ of injunction is issued
reading as follows:
"Ole Ellingson, manager and
treasurer, A. t. Holton, president
and Ed. Sellman, secretary, of said
corporation, and each of them, their
agents, servants, officers, directors
and employees, be and the same are
hereby perpetually restrained and
enjoined from exacting, collecting or
receiving or in any manner accept
ng any sum or amount whatever
from any bid made by any competi-
tor upon the general market at De-
corah, Iowa, and vicinity, as an in
ducement or condition upon which
said sellers shall or may sell or dis
pose of live stock to plaintiff, his
servants, agents or employees, and
that plaintiff have judgment against
defendant for costs.
A. n. HOBSON."