Case Name: STODDARD v. BREWER
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1944-11-30
Citations: 310 Mich. 22
Docket Number: Docket No. 71, Calendar No. 42,856
Parties: STODDARD v. BREWER.
Judges: North, C. J., and Starr, Butzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, Boyles, and Reid, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 310
Pages: 22–23

Head Matter:
STODDARD v. BREWER.
Injunction — Judgment—Res Judicata — Adequacy op Remedy at Law.
Injunction against threatened action at law by defendant against plaintiff will not lie because of prior determination had between the parties since plaintiff herein will have adequate protection if the holding in the former case is res judicata of the issues in the threatened action.
Injunctive relief to prevent harm not granted if protection at law is adequate, see 2 Restatement, Contracts, § 380 (1) (a).
Appeal from Ingham; Hayden (Charles H.), J.
Submitted October 10, 1944.
(Docket No. 71, Calendar No. 42,856.)
Decided November 30, 1944.
Bill by Howard1 J. Stoddard against Joseph Hill-yer Brewer, executor of the estate of Joseph H. Brewer, deceased, to restrain the commencement of any action at law involving the transaction set forth in a certain agreement. Decree dismissing bill of complaint. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Shields, Ballard, Jennings & Taber, for plaintiff.
McPherson, Harrington, Waer & Gary, for defendant.

Opinion:
Wiest, J.
The bill in this case was filed to restrain, by injunction, threatened action at law by defendant against plaintiff upon the ground that trans-actions between the parties, as reduced to writing, were determined to be contrary to public policy in Brewer v. Stoddard, 309 Mich. 119.
Defendant states:
"In Brewer v. Stoddard, 309 Mich. 119, plaintiff proceeded upon the theory that all prior agreements between the parties were merged in the contract of June 10, 1940, upon which that suit was brought. In the action now before the court he bases his claim of right to recover upon the pre-existing contract because the contract of June 10, 1940, has been held unenforceable."
If the holding in the former case is res judicata of the issues in the threatened action then plaintiff herein will have adequate protection at law. We find nothing calling for equity intervention.
Dismissal of the bill is affirmed, with costs to defendant.
North, C. J., and Starr, Butzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, Boyles, and Reid, JJ., concurred.