Court Opinion

ID: 9825894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 14:16:12.979601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:27.804309
License: Public Domain

McFaddin, J., (concurring). I concur in the result reached in this case; that is, that the cause should be reversed and the complaint dismissed; but my reasons for concurrence are solely because of the absence of any equity in the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff, Karston, was operating a gambling house under the decision of this Court in Fox v. Harrison, 178 Ark. 1189, 13 S. W. 2d 808. The State Police raided his place of business on four occasions, destroying property. If Karston conceived that the officers acted wrongfully in destroying any of his property, then his remedy was not a suit in equity for injunction, but an action at ■law for damages. JudgeRiDDicK, speaking for this Court in Garland Novelty Co. v. State, 71 Ark. 138, 71 S. W. 257, recognized this distinction when he said: ‘‘ The owner of property thus summarily destroyed is not without a remedjr if the destruction bo wrongful, for, if the property be not such as is contemplated by the statute, the officer is responsible to the owner in damages.” So, Karston’s remedy, if he was wronged, was at law and not in equity. Further, there is a rule of equity that he who seeks its aid must come with clean hands, and that rule closes the door to Karston in this case. In the case of Pon v. Wittman, 147 Cal. 280, 81 Pac. 984, 2 L. R. A., N. S., 683, an operator sought an injunction against police interference in a somewhat analogous case, and the Supreme Court of California in denying the right to any equitable relief because of the clean hands doctrine, said: “His business relationships with them (the prostitutes) were such, and the success of his business was so dependent upon their maintenance there, and he is so directly benefited by their perpetuation, that the good faith of his application might well be questioned, as it might be equally questioned whether he came into court with such clean hands and clear conscience as entitled him to invoke the equitable powers of the court to interfere, by injunction, with the execution or enforcement of the criminal laws.” In Weiss v. Herlihy, 49 N. Y. S. 81, 23 App. Div. 608, in a somewhat similar case to the one at bar, the court there said: “The plaintiff is persistently and flagrantly using his premises as a disorderly house. He asked the help of the equitable power of the court practically for the purposes of permitting him to continue in that violation of- the law. It is apparent that an injunction could have no other effect, and that just as soon as the inspection of the police is withdrawn, the gambling house will be reopened to the scandal and inconvenience of the neighborhood. The court of equity will not permit its process to be perverted to any such purpose.” There are other authorities to the same effect. Delaney v. Flood, 183 N. Y. 323, 76 N. E. 209, 2 L. R. A., N. S., 678, 11 Am. St. Rep. 759, 5 Ann. Cas. 48; Andrieux v. City of Butte, 44 Mont. 557, 121 Pac. 291, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 712. So, I reach the conclusion that Karston’s complaint should have been dismissed for want of equity. With the question of jurisdiction settled — and that is always a primary question — all other questions in this appeal become mere obiter dicta, and because such matters are dicta, I am concurring in the result and foregoing the dicta.