Case Name: Ramstock and another vs. Roth and another
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1864-06
Citations: 18 Wis. 522
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ramstock and another vs. Roth and another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 522–524

Head Matter:
Ramstock and another vs. Roth and another.
A strictly regular service of an injunctional order is not necessary to entitle the injunction plaintiif to proceed by attachment as for a contempt against the defendant, in order to obtain a restoration of his legal rights lost by a violation of the injunction.
Where copies of an injunctional order against waste, not certified by the clerk of court, were served personally upon the defendants, without showing them the original order, and, upon an affidavit showing a violation of the injunction to his damage, the plaintiff obtained an attachment against the defendants : B.M, that the court erred in dissolving the attachment on the ground that the injunc-tional order had never been duly served.
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Washington County.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage of real estate, tbe plaintiff obtained an order restraining tbe defendants from committing waste upon tbe mortgaged premises. On tbe summons annexed to tbe complaint, undertaking and injunctional order, was indorsed an affidavit of service, made by a person wbo was not an officer of tbe court, wbicb stated that tbe affiant served sucb summons and complaint, undertaking and injunctional order, on tbe defendants, by delivering and leaving with each of them copies of tbe same, and that affiant knew tbe persons served to be tbe persons mentioned in said summons as defendants therein. Afterwards tbe plaintiff bad a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and there was a deficiency after tbe sale of some $8000. Subsequently an affidavit of one of tbe plaintiffs was filed, wbicb stated, inter alia, that tbe injunctional order bad been duly served upon tbe defendants, and that tbe same bad been violated by them in certain specified ways, to tbe plaintiff’s damage in tbe sum of $1200, and that certain fixtures removed from tbe premises contrary to said order were still in tbe possession or under tbe control of tbe defendants. Upon this affidavit tbe plaintiffs obtained from tbe court an attachment against tbe persons of tbe defendants, as for a contempt. On tbe day when tbe attachment was made returnable, tbe defendants being then in court, tbe plaintiffs offered to file their interrogatories as by law provided; but tbe court, on motion of the defendants, discharged them from further answering in the attachment proceedings, on the ground that the injunctional order had never been duly served. From this order the plaintiffs appealed.
Smith & Cotzhausen, for appellants,
cited Kimpton v. Five, 2 Ves. & B., 349; Lewes v. Morgan, 5 Price, 518 ; Drewry on Injunctions, 399; 1 Waterman’s Eden, 99; Hull v. Thomas, 3 Edw. Ch. B., 236; Osborne v. Tenant, 14 Ves., 136; James v. Downes, 18 id., 522 ; Van Sandau v. Bose, 2 Jac. & Walk., 265 ; Scott v. Becher, 4 Price, 352; The People v. Oompton, 1 Duer, 512; 5 Seld., 278 ; 4 Paige, 405, 360; 1 Craig & Phillips, 98 ; 4 Mylne and C., 498 ; Livingston v. Swift, 23 How. Pr. R., 1.
Thorp, Shelly dk Frisby, for respondents,
contended that the injunctional order must have been served upon the defendants by delivering to each of them a copy duly certified by the clerk of the court from which it issued, and at the same time showing the party served the original order signed by the judge of said court — the court not having directed any different kind of service in this case. Voorhies’s Code, 4th ed., 311, 312; 1 Barb. Ch. Pr., 631; 1 Whittaker’s Pr., 266; Eden on Inj., 93; 3 Dan. Ch. Pr., 280; Ooddingtonv. Webb, 4 Sandf., 639; Watson v. Fuller, 9 How. Pr. R., 426 ; Wallis v. Glynn, Cooper’s Cases, 282 ; 2 Monell’s Pr., 2d ed., 212 ; Mayor &c. of N. Y. v. Oonover, 5 Abb., 244; Smith v. Smith, 14 Id., 130; id., 468 ; 23 How. Pr. R, 134; 3 Paige, 86, note 1.

Opinion:
By the Court,
DixoN, C. J.
A distinction is taken in some of the cases, whether the object of the prosecution for the alleged contempt is to restore the party injured to his pecuniary rights, or to maintain the dignity and authority of the court. According to many of the cases, actual service of the injunction is not necessary for either purpose, but it is enough that the party enjoined has knowledge that the injunction has been granted, however such knowledge may have been derived. But no case has fallen under our observation, where it has been held that strictly regular service of tbe injunction was necessary to enable tbe injured party to prosecute in order to be restored to bis legal rights lost by a violation of tbe injunction. On tbe other band, there are several cases where it has been decided that such service was not requisite for that purpose. Livingston v. Swift, 23 How. Pr. R., 1, and cases cited. Such is tbe object of tbe prosecution in this case. Tbe plaintiffs claim to have suffered great pecuniary damages by reason of tbe alleged disobedience of tbe. injunction on tbe part of tbe defendants, after personal, though perhaps informal, service upon them of true copies of tbe order.
This we think, within the authorities, a sufficient service for that purpose.
Order reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.