44 Conn. 419 | Conn. | 1877
Courts of equity are clothed with jurisdiction to restrain, by injunction, proceedings at law in all cases where, by fraud, accident, mistake or otherwise, a party has obtained an advantage in a court of law, which must necessarily make that court an instrument of injustice. In cases of that description the restraint may be imposed to stay trial, and after trial and verdict to stay judgment, after judgment to stay execution, and after execution to stáy money in the hands of the officer. But after a judgment an injunction will not be granted to stay its execution, unless there has been fraud or collusion in obtaining it or the verdict upon which it was founded, or where the party has been unáble to defend himself effectually at law, without any fault or negligence qf his own, or where the plaintiff has possessed himself óf something by means of which he has obtained an unconscientious advantage. When an injunction is granted to stay proceedings in the courts of law, it is in no just sense a prohibition to those courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction. It is not addressed to them and does not even affect to interfere with them. The process is directed only to the parties. It neither assumes any superiority over the court in which the proceedings are had, nor denies its jurisdiction. It is granted bn the sole ground that from certain equitable circumstances of which the court granting the process has cognizance, it is against conscience that the party inhibited should proceed in the cause. The object, therefore, really is to prevent an unfair use being made of a court of law, in order to deprive another party of his just rights ór subject him to some unjust vexation or injury which is wholly irremediable by a court of law. Mitf. Eq. Plead., by Jeremy, 127, 128, 131; Eden on Injunct., ch. 2, p. 4; 2 Danl. Ch. Prac., 1623; Earl of Oxford’s case, 1 Ch. Rep., 1; 3 Lead. Cases in Equity, by Hare & Wallace, 3d Am. ed., 155.
The case stated in the bill before us does not come within either of these principles. The bill states that the Superior Court sitting at Hartford, issued upon- motion of the State’s
In the case of Morris Tyler & others v. William Hamersley, State’s Attorney, in error, which was argued at the present term of this court, we held, after much deliberation, that the writ of error brought upon the judgment awarding the peremptory writ of mandamus against the New Haven and Northampton Company, was not a supersedeas of the latter writ; and we also held in the same case that the writ of error brought upon the judgment by which the plaintiffs were adjudged guilty of contempt in disobeying the writ of mandamus and ordering them to be committed to jail therefor, did .not operate as a supersedeas. These determinations took away from the plaintiffs the only grounds upon which they rest their right to the relief sought by the present bill, and entitle the defendants to a decree of dismissal with costs. But aside from those determinations, the facts charged in the bill show no title whatever in the plaintiffs to equitable relief, and are not even within the jurisdiction of a court of equity. It is an established rule that courts of equity will grant nó injunction, or order in the nature of an injunction, to stay proceedings in any criminal matter. If they should do so, said Lord Holt, C. J., the court of Queen’s Bench would break it, ..and protect any that would proceed in contempt of it, Holderstaffe v. Saunders, 6 Mod., 16. And Lord Hardwicke allowed a demurrer to a bill for an injunction to stay proceedings on a mandamus issued to the lord of a manor to hold a court. “ The court,” he said, “ has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction to stay proceedings on a mandamus, or on an indictment; or on an information or a writ of prohibition.” Lord Montague v. Dudman, 2 Ves. Sr., 396; Eden on Injunct., 41, 42; 3 Wooddes.,Lect. 56, p. 413; Jeremy on Eq. Jurisd., book 3, ch. 2, § 1, p. 309; 1 Sto. Eq. Jur., § 893. It follows, therefore, that a court of equity has no jurisdiction to stay
For these reasons the Superior Court is advised to dismiss the plaintiffs’ bill.
In this opinion the other judges concurred; except Pakk, C. J., who dissented for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in the case of Tyler v. Hamersley, next preceding.