Lane v. Charless
Supreme Court of Missouri
1. It may be assumed from the authorities cited, that an injunction is parcel of chancery or equity jurisdiction. 2. That pH original jurisdiction in civil cases, and especially in equity or chancery cases, has been given to the general assembly for the purpose of distributing the same.
Read the full summary
1. It may be assumed from the authorities cited, that an injunction is parcel of chancery or equity jurisdiction. 2. That pH original jurisdiction in civil cases, and especially in equity or chancery cases, has been given to the general assembly for the purpose of distributing the same. That the general assembly hath, by statutory enactment, made the distribution, and in so doing, has given to this court the original jurisdiction in this case. 3. It may be assumed that the writ of injunction is an original remedial writ, and that the power to grant such original remedial writ has been given…
1Opinion of the CourtMcGirk, Judge
Lane and McCabe made a motion to this court for an injunction to restrain Chari ess from doing certain things stated in their bill of complaint. The bill is produced, and notice to the opposite party has been admitted. Messrs. Primm & Drake, of counsel for the defendant, Charless, oppose the motion ©n the ground that the granting an injunction by this court, is the exercise of original jurisdiction by this court, and that by the constitution of the State, this court cannot exercise original jurisdiction in any case, unless in cases expressly or impliedly provided for by the constitution, and…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State ex rel. National Subway Co. v. St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Vail v. DinningSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- State ex rel. Kansas City Auditorium Co. v. AllenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- State Ex Rel. R-1 School District of Putnam County v. EwingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1966
- State ex rel. Roland v. DreyerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.