Knox County v. Harshman
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Heikkila v. Barber (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1958)
- Brill v. General Industrial Enterprises (3d Cir. 1956)
- Brill v. General Industrial Enterprises, Inc. (3d Cir. 1956)
- Chesapeake Western Ry. v. Jardine (D.C. Cir. 1925)
- Ford v. State (Tex. App. 1919)
- State ex rel. Gibson v. Superior Court (Wash. 1905)
- Carter v. Gear (Haw. 1904)
- National Surety Co. v. State Bank (8th Cir. 1903)
- New River Mineral Co. v. Seeley (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Virginia 1902)
- Ex parte Whitmore (Utah 1894)
- Lowell Bar Ass'n v. Loeb (Mass. 1943)
- Jenner v. Murray (5th Cir. 1929)
- Virginian Railway Co. v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1927)
- MINNEAPOLIS RR v. Peoria Ry. (Supreme Court of the United States 1926)
- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1926)
- Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission (Supreme Court of the United States 1922)
- Shaw v. Lane (D.C. Cir. 1917)
- Christy v. Atchison (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1914)
- Merrimack River Savings Bank v. City of Clay Center (Supreme Court of the United States 1911)
- Hulan v. Wayne Circuit Judge (Mich. 1910)
- Commonwealth v. Osler (Pa. 1907)
- Cardoza v. Baird (D.C. Cir. 1907)
- Schrot v. Schoenfeld (D.C. Cir. 1904)
- Hitz v. Jenks (D.C. Cir. 1900)
- Staffords v. King (4th Cir. 1898)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellant’s counsel contends that the appeal taken and perfected from the decree dismissing his client’s bill of complaint operated, or should be made to operate, to supersede the judgment, in collection of which the peremptory writ of mandamus was awarded. That judgment was recovered on the 28th day of Maroh, 1881, and no proceedings in error have ever been taken, and no bond given to supersede its operation. An alternative writ of mandamus was sued out, the cause shown by the county court and its judges against granting the peremptory writ was disposed of by this court on writ of error, and the peremptory writ was directed to be issued. The county of Knox then filed its bill in equity to restrain the collection of the judgment as commanded, No preliminary injunction was granted, and upon final hearing the bill was dismissed, and a decree passed against the county for costs,
The'general rule is well settled that an appeal from a decree granting, refusing, • or dissolving an injunction, does not disturb its operative effect. Hovey v. McDonald, 109 U. S. 150, 161; Slaughter-House Cases, 10 Wall. 273, 297; Leonard v. Ozark Land Co., 115 U. S. 465, 468.
When an injunction has been dissolved, it cannot be revived *17 except by a new exercise of judicial power; and fio'appeal by ’ the dissatisfied party can of itself revive it. A' fortiori, the mere prosecution of an appeal cannot operate as an injunction where none has been granted.
As stated by Mr. Chief Justice Waite, in Spraul v. Louisiana, 123 U. S. 516, 518, “The supersedeas provided for in § 1007 of the Revised Statutes stays process for the execution of the judgment or decree brought under revi iw by the writ of error or appeal to which it belongs.”
The supersedure of process on the decree dismissing the bill' could not supersede process on the judgment at law, and this is so, notwithstanding a bill to impeach a judgment is regarded as an auxiliary or dependent and no' as an original bill.
The record presents no ground for the interference sought, and
The motion n ,ust be overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.