Caldwell v. George
Caldwell v. George
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellants filed a bill in the court below against appellee, upon which they obtained a temporary injunction directing him to “refrain from further proceeding with the erection of a structure on the south side of Fifth street over and across the sidewalk thereof, in the city of Meridian, Miss.” This injunction on motion was dissolved, and on final hearing the bill was dismissed. After the dissolution of this injunction, and before final decree dismissing the bill, the structure over the sidewalk was completed either by A. H. George or A. H. George Company. At a former term of this court this decree was reversed and final judgment rendered here (Caldwell v. George, 96 Miss. 484, 50 South. 631), by which it was adjudged “that the decree of said chancery court rendered in this cause on the 20th day of May, 1909, be and the same is hereby reversed, the injunction reinstated and made perpetual, and that the appellee pay the costs of this cause in this court and in the court below to be taxed,” etc. This judgment was certified to the court below, as provided by section 4946 of the Code of 1906.
This writ, having been served upon appellee by the sheriff, was upon motion filed by his quashed by decree of the court below, from which decree this appeal is taken. When the final decree was rendered in this court, it became the duty of appellee to obey the injunction therein reinstated without further service of process. Had he thereafter proceeded “with the erection of a structure” “over and across the sidewalk,” he would have been subject to an attachment for contempt of court.
The court below committed no error in quashing the writ, and its decree is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- J. H. Caldwell v. A. H. George
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Appeal and EAror. Injunction. Reversal. Effect. Parties hound. Where on motion in the trial court an injunction was dissolved and on final hearing the bill was dismissed and on appeal to the supreme court the decree was reversed and the injunction was reinstated and made perpetual, it became the duty of the defendant to obey the injunction and his failure to do so subjected him to an attachment for contempt. 2. Same. A decree on appeal in the supreme court reinstating an injunction quashed in the lower court is not binding on one not made a party to the bill before decree in the trial court.