Injunctions. Nature and Scope of Remedy. Perpetual Injunction after Long Possession

1908 Harvard Law Review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. HARVARD LAW REVIEW. HARVARD LAW REVIEW. HARVARD LAW REVIEW. HARVARD LAW REVIEW. 333. If the relator is released from custody before service, the writ should, of course, be quashed. Commonwealth v. Chandler, II Mass. 83; Barnardo v. Ford, supra. But it has been held that a release of the relator on bail after service will not oust the court of its jurisdiction to make a final order. Pomeroy v. Lappeus, 9 Ore. 363. And similarly where the respondent made a motion for a continuance on the ground that the relator had escaped, the court refused the motion and proceeded to final judgment. Ex parte Coutpland, 26 Tex. 386. On the other hand, it has been held, in accord with the present case, that although the relator escaped after service, the writ should be dismissed. Hamilton v. Flowers, 57 Miss. 14. And on principle it would seem that when it appeared that the relator was no longer detained, since the very purpose of the writ, the termination of his detention, was shown to have been accomplished, it should have been quashed. The subsequent surrender and confinement constitute a new detention for which a new writ should issue. HABEAS CORPUS -JURISDICTION OF COURTS -FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS. -A federal circuit court on the petition of a railway corporation granted an interlocutory injunction against the North Carolina railway commissioners, etc., pending an inquiry under the direction of the court as to the constitutionality of a state act defining maximum railway rates. It enjoined them from enforcing these rates and from prosecuting the company or its employees for failure to obey the statute. Southern Ry. Co. v. McNeill, I55 Fed. 756 (Circ. Ct., E. D. N. C.). Notwithstanding the circuit court had taken jurisdiction, an inferior state court convicted an employee of the company for failure to comply with the act. He applied to the circuit court for discharge on a writ of habeas corpus. Held, that the petitioner be discharged. Exparte Wood, 155 Fed. 9go (Circ. Ct., W. D. N. C.). See NOTES, p. 204.
fatcat:saqjkj3uqnbdxdjoe36gjtgtdu