Case Name: ANDERSON v. SMITLEY et al. (two cases)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-12-02
Citations: 126 N.Y.S. 31
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANDERSON v. SMITLEY et al. (two cases).
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 126
Pages: 31–32

Head Matter:
ANDERSON v. SMITLEY et al. (two cases).
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 2, 1910.)
Injunction (§ 223 )—Violation of Ordek—Liability.
Where a judgment establishing the validity of a will, and containing a provision as authorized by Code Civ. Proc. § 2653a, enjoining all parties to the action from maintaining any action based on a claim of the invalidity of the will, was rendered pursuant to a settlement of an action by the widow of testator to set aside his will disinheriting her, the widow, by subsequently suing for damages for fraud inducing the execution by her of an instrument releasing her interest in the estate, violated the injunction, and she was guilty of contempt.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 448-473; Dec. Dig. § 223.*]
Laughlin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York-County.
Action by Eva Roxana Anderson against Jane Ann Smitley and others. From an order denying an application to punish plaintiff for contempt of court, defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McEAUGHEIN, SCOTT, LAUGHLIN, and DOWLING, JJ.
Edward W. Paige, for appellants.
Francis A. McCloskey, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs.,1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
We have held in Anderson v. Smitley (decided herewith) 126 N. Y. Supp. 25, that the injunction contained in the final decree entered on October 13, 1903, in the action then pending, is an effectual bar to the prosecution of the action commenced by plaintiff in May, 1908. It is but a single step further and a necessary corollary to hold that the bringing of the second action is a violation of the injunctive clause of the previous decree and a contempt of court. The appellants' motion to punish plaintiff as for a contempt must therefore be granted, the proceedings on the part of the plaintiff in the second action stayed, and plaintiff specifically restrained from further prosecuting it.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and .motion granted, as above indicated.
INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN and DOWLING, JJ., concur.