178 P. 287 | Mont. | 1919
delivered the opinion of the court.
To avoid circumlocution the defendant will be referred to as Mrs. Bown. In August, 1915, plaintiff and defendant, with
The application for injunction in the annulment suit was based upon the complaint in that action which is made a part of the record in this case, and the application in this instance was made upon the complaint herein. There is no substantial difference in the facts disclosed by the two pleadings. The alleged fraud committed by Mrs. Bown at the time the marriage ceremony was performed, and the fact that the fraud was not discovered until after the rendition of the judgment in the separate maintenance suit constitute the foundation for the application in each instance.
A party may not make successive applications for injunction upon the same state of facts. There must be an end to litigation some time. When the injunction was denied in the annulment suit, Bown had his remedy by appeal (sec. 7098, Rev.
It is unnecessary to consider other questions presented upon this appeal. The order refusing the injunction is affirmed.
The injunction pending appeal heretofore issued by this court is dissolved.
Affirmed.