Year: 1870

tion-that has already been done-and nj
counter injunction could lawfully be ISSUED


by any court in this State" The ques
tom they say, sis what court shall dissolve
! the Injunction already issued, and there i:
nothing in the act that purporSs to take
away the power Of the Seventh District
| Court to maintain, control or quasn It's OWL
process already issued"


We find it impossible to assent to this
| proposition. The intent and OBJECT OF the
| law are to confer upon the court Wh1ch /:
creates exclusive jurisdiction OF class OF
cases which had been provocative OF strange
| and unseemly conflicts among some OF the
District Courts of this parish. Among these
cases the injunction suit seems to have oc-
cupied prominent position IN the thought
of the law giver. Not only does he confer
upon the new court exclusive jurisdiction 10
issue iDjunctions Except in certain in
stances, Of which third opposltlons and
suits of nullity are eXamples), but he pro-
vides in the fourth section that when the
Eighth District Court shall issue an injunc-
tion ID suit pending before one OF the Die
trict Courts, that suit shall be lmmedi.
ately transferred.


1t is then provided that Immediately on
the passage OF the act suits or proceedings,
the jurisdiction of which is thus vested in
the court, shall be transferred, and the
other courts divested OF all power TO make
any order except an order Of transfer.


This refers, Of course, to suits pending at
the time the law was passed, for the trans
fer is TO be made Immediately upon the
passage of the law. and we are of opinion
that the suit of tie relator was Included
among them. 1t is s. suit i'll which the
plaintiff udicially claims an injunction. He
asks for preliminary injunction and OBJ
tains it; but this process is in its nature
conservatory and transitory merely. He
asks further for perpetual INJUNCTION, that
is to be granted in the final judgment if at
the time it is rendered the judge has juris-
diction to grant it, and 1t IS to endure for
all time. But between the time the Judge
Of the Seventh District Court granted the
temporary injunction and the time he was
called upon to adiudicate the question
whether he should issue perpetual ipJunc-
ton. his power to issue an Injunction Of
any kind in such case was taken away.


His Jurisdiction, "the power of him who
has the right Of judging" C. p. 76, was gone,
and the reiator has no right to compel him
by mandamus to proceed with a cause i'll
which he can not, for want of power, give
the Judgment which is asked for in the petit
ton. The relator complains of loss of
rights in this matter. "Practically." he
says, I'VE have been fiaDked cut CT position,
and lost the benefit of cur suit and writ by
the counter injunction, issued, from the
Eighth District Court" But this counter
ipjunction, as we we have seen, was net
issued until the second Of May, some six
weeks after the relator had an opportunity
to transfer its cause. If it did not choose
to make the transfer it can hardly complain
if the Judge of the Eighth District Court,
who can not be presumed to have known OF
the suit, should entertain q petition from its
adversary. We are of opinion that the cause
should be transferred to the Eighth District
Court; ana it is therefore ordered that the
application of the relator be dismissed, with
costs.