The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1912-11-07

revision oil the equity rules of federal
courts in the last 80 years, the SUI
preme court of the United States pro-
hibited the granting of temporary in
functions without notice, and re-
stricted the granting of temporary re-
straining orders. The court embodied
in the new rule many of the points
of the Clayton anti-injunction bill, Tor
which labor leaders have been fight-
ing, which passed the House and
waits in the Senate.
Instead of temporary restraining
orders being issued without notice up
on presentation to a federal judge of
general allegations that immediate
and irreparable damage is about to
be inflicted the new rule requires,
that il must be shown by specific
facts set forth in affidayits, or other
wise, that such damage will result
When a temporary restraining order
is issued a hearing on the injunction
must be given within 10 days. Here
tofore no time limit was fixed by the
rules, and often not by the courts.
The court went still further ana
provided that those restrained may
come into court, within two days and
be heard with expedition on motion
to dissolve the restraining order. The
new rules do not require those procnr-
ing the restraining order to give
bond. or the judge to set forth in the
order his reasons for granting L..
These were provisions in the Clayton
bill
Chief Justice White did not refer
to the anti-injunction rule in annophc-
ing the changes in the old rules, bat
did emphasize the statement that tie
revision was designed to simplify pto-
cedure and remove delays and reduce
cost. The antique form of pleading is
abrogated in the new rules Tor III"
modern forms of Code" states. Judges
are required. with few exceptions, 10
take testimony in court instead OF ap-
pointing referees to do so, and ap-
pelate courts are authorized more gen
orally to dispose of suits instead OF
reversing on immaterial errors.
Among new rules of procedure an
nounced by the supreme court, Mon
day. is one not referred to by Chlei
Justice White in his explanation from
the bench, which would prohibit is
sue OF preliminary injunctons With
out notice to the opposite party AMI
also restricting issues OF temporary
restraining orders. The new rule on
injunetions provides
No preliminary injunction shall BE-
granted without notice to the opposite
party, nor shall any temporary re-
straining order be granted without no
tice to the opposite party unless /
shall clearly appear from specific
facts shown by affidavit or by the YER
flied bill. that immediate and irrepar-
able loss or damage will result to the
applicant before the matter can be
heard ON notice.
In case d temporary restraining or
der shall be granted without notlca
in the contingency specified, the mat
fer shall be made returnable at tile
earliest possible time and in no event
later than 10 days from the date o.
rhe order and shall take precedence o.
all matters. except older matters Of
the same character. When the matter
comes up for hearing the party VINO
obtained the temporary restraining
order shall proceed with his applica-
ton Tor a preliminary injunction ana
If he does not do SO the court shall
dissolve his temporary restraining Or
der
s.. non two days notice to the par
~ obtaining such temporary restrain
ing order the opposite party may ap-
pear and move the dissolution ana
modification of the order, and in that
event the court or Judge shall proceed
{
10 hear and determine the motion rs
expeditiously as the end of justice may
rennire Every temporary restraining
order shall be forthwith filed IN the
clerks Office
The new anti-injunction rule lncot-
porated into practice several demands
of labor leaders which they sought 10
have recognized by the enactment Oh
the so-calIed Clayton anti-inlunctloh
hill The new rule follows in gehet-
al way the rules of the federal court
in the 9th circuit. which comprises the
Pacific coast states.
Revolutionary changes in procedure
IN eouity cases in Federal courts,
throughout the United States are Ell
ected In revised rules promulgated
Monday. by the supreme court OF the
limited States. The object is to re-
duce the cost of litigation and 10
eliminate delays.
Chief Justice White, explaining the
rules from the bench, grouped the re-
forms under four or five heads. One
was in regard to the exercise OF pow
or by the Federal courts in equitablr
matters. Another was described 10