209 P. 624 | Utah | 1922
The Utah Oil Refining Company, hereinafter called company, filed its application in this court for an alternative writ of prohibition against the district court of Salt Lake county, hereinafter styled defendant, requiring said court to show cause why a peremptory writ of prohibition should not be issued to prohibit it from proceeding to hear and determine the issue respecting damages in a certain action wherein one George'H. Horne and others are plaintiffs and the company herein is the defendant.
The application is quite voluminous, and, in view that the facts upon which it is based can be stated in a few sentences, we deem it unnecessary to set forth the averments of the application at length.
An alternative writ was duly issued as prayed, to which an answer was duly filed by the defendant.
There being no dispute respecting the facts, the matter was submitted to this court upon the application of the company, the answer of the defendant, and the printed briefs filed by the respective parties which were supplemented by oral arguments.
The application is predicated upon substantially the following facts and circumstances:
In July, 1920, the said George H. Horne and about 110 others, as plaintiffs, commenced an action in the district court of Salt Lake county against the company herein. The purpose or object of said action was to obtain an injunction against the company for certain wrongs which it was alleged it had committed and was continuing to commit against the water rights of the parties plaintiff in said aetion; and ip
The gist of the company’s contention in this proceeding is that in view that the district court did not try and determine the issue of damages during the term of court at which the injunction was granted, and for the reason that no application under Comp. Laws Utah 1917, § 6619, was made within six months after the term at which the injunctive relief was granted and the decree was entered, the district court lost jurisdiction of the case and cannot now legally proceed to hear and determine the issue of damages or any other issue in said cause which it threatens to do and which it will do unless prohibited by this court.
While it is true that ordinarily all of the issues in a particular case must be tried and determined at the time that a case is heard and that an issue not presented or tried at such time is, nevertheless, deemed res adjudicata and cannot be reopened, yet there are exceptions to that rule which are as well established as the rule itself. This court has had occasion to pass upon that identical question in the case of North Point Con. Irr. Co. v. Canal Co., 23 Utah, 199, 63 Pac. 812. In that case two issues were presented, one equitable for in-junctive relief and the other legal for damages. The district court in that case heard and determined the equitable issue and deferred the hearing upon the issue for damages until a later time. That ease was appealed to this court twice. The first appeal is found in 16 Utah, 246, 52 Pac. 168, 40 L. R. A. 851, 67 Am. St. Rep. 607, on which appeal the judgment of the district court was reversed and the cause was remanded with directions. The second appeal is reported in 23 Utah, 199, 63 Pac. 812, supra. On the second appeal this court, after stating the facts from which it is made to appear that the case in legal effect was one like the ease at bar in that the plaintiff prayed for injunctive relief and in connec
“Upon the trial oí the legal issues, involving the question of damages the appellants (defendants below) claimed that the court erred in overruling their objection to the further trial or consideration of any issue as to damages, because the court had no jurisdiction to proceed in the premises a final decree having been entered for an injunction and costs.
“It is clear from the record that only the equitable issues involved in the case were first tried and decided, and it is equally clear that by agreement of counsel, entered of record, and recited in the decree of the court below, the question of damages was reserved for hearing after the determination of the equitable issues.
“The first decree of June 21, 1895 [1898], on the equitable issues was final upon the issues submitted, tried and determined, but as to the question of damages which had been expressly reserved for determination until after the equitable issues were disposed of, it was not final until the issue as to damages had been tried. The court very properly left the question of damages until after the main question was determined. The fact that costs had been taxed on the first hearing on appeal and paid on execution, does not change the rule, nor deprive the respondent of its right to proceed • to a final hearing of its ease as to damages.”
Counsel for the company seek to avoid the force of that decision for the alleged reason that in that case the damages were fully pleaded, which, they contend, is not the fact in the case at bar. In that connection they also urge that in view that the case at bar was not determined during the term at which the injunctive relief was entered and no application was ever made as provided in section 6619 before referred to, the company is prejudiced for the reason that it is not permitted to set up a counterclaim to the cause of action that may be set forth by the plaintiffs in their “amended and_supplemental complaint.” In our opinion, neither the first nor the second reason is tenable. The mere fact that the judgment was reversed in the North Point Case and that that case was remanded with directions in no way affects the legal propositions involved here.
Nor is there any merit whatever in the contention that the company, as the defendant in that action, is now precluded from setting up any counterclaim or defense it may have to
Nor is there any merit to the contention that the district court is powerless or without jurisdiction to permit new parties to come into the action and set up their damages which are caused by the wrongs complained of against the company. That question has also been set at rest by this court in the case of Kinsman v. Utah Gas & Coke Co., 53 Utah, 10, 177 Pac. 418. In that case, although the' damages were not fully pleaded, yet this court directed the district court to permit the pleadings to be amended, and that it also permit all persons who were injured by the wrongs of the defendant in that action and which were complained of therein to be made parties, and that they be permitted to set up their damages in proper pleadings. In legal effect there is no distinction between that ease and the ease at bar, and we see no good reason, and none has been shown, why the decision in that case is not sound and should not be followed.
We desire to add in conclusion that in our judgment there is no merit in the foregoing contentions of the company. It would be a serious reflection upon the administration of justice to hold that, in an action where injunctive relief was sought and in connection therewith damages were also prayed for, a court of equity could not defer the question of damages until plaintiff’s equitable lights in the premises were adjudged. Take this case as an example: Here the company, as the defendant in the former action, disputed plaintiff’s rights in totó and insisted that it had merely done and was doing what it had a legal right to do in the premises. If that had been established as a legal conclusion from the facts found, then the plaintiffs in that action were not entitled to any relief whatever either equitable or legal. The respective rights of the parties in the premises therefore had to be determined before the question of damages could be intelligently considered. In view that neither party would have been satisfied — and it is clearly established that the company was not satisfied — with the ruling of the district court respecting the legal rights of the parties, it was deemed proper to settle the rights of the parties in the premises by this court before proceeding to the issue of damages. In that view both parties, as well as the district court, at that time joined and acted accordingly by merely disposing of the equitable issue and leaving the legal issue until this court had passed upon and settled the equitable issue. The rights that the law gives to the respective parties having been established and settled, it is both reasonable and just that the. issue of damages be now also considered and determined. In determining that issue the company may plead and prove any legal defense or defenses, or counterclaim, or counterclaims, it may have, bar
From what has been said it follows that the alternative writ ought to be, and it hereby is, quashed; and a permanent writ is denied. Defendant to recover costs.