Endter v. Lennon

46 Wis. 299
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 46 Wis. 299 (Endter v. Lennon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Endter v. Lennon, 46 Wis. 299 (Wis. 1879).

Opinion

RyaN, O. J.

This case is governed by Platto v. Deuster, 22 Wis., 482. In that case, a suit in equity was commenced in one court to restrain the execution of a writ of assistance issued by another court of concurrent jurisdiction, in another suit in equity. Here a suit is brought to restrain the execution of a writ of assistance issued by the same court in another suit. The same principle governs both cases equally. One court of equity will not enjoin the process of another. One suit in equity will not lie to enjoin process issuing in another. The objection is fatal, whether the second suit be brought in the same or in another court, by a party or by a stranger to the first suit. The propei c mrse by either party or stranger to the first suit, is to apply by petition for relief in that suit. “ The power of the court in which the judgment or decree was rendered, to grant the requisite relief in cases lilre this, is undoubted. The chancellor might always, either in the court or at chambers, suspend the execution of a final order or decree, on the ground of subsequent matter that would render its execution oppressive or iniquitous.” Platto v. Deuster.

The chief justice’s opinion in that case is learned and well considered, and the judgment has never been questioned. A different rule would be, as the chief justice remarks, not only improper, but absurd, would lead to embarrassing conflict of jurisdiction, and intolerable confusion and difficulty.

The order must be reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below, with directions to dismiss the complaint.

By the Court. — So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ada Enterprises, Inc. v. Thompson
132 N.W.2d 244 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1965)
Yates v. Yates
147 N.W. 60 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1914)
Jackson Milling Co. v. Scott
110 N.W. 184 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1907)
Pleshek v. McDonell
110 N.W. 269 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1907)
Gray v. South & North Alabama Railway Co.
43 So. 259 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank of Shullsburg
79 N.W. 229 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1899)
Stein v. Benedict
53 N.W. 891 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1892)
Cardinal v. Eau Claire Lumber Co.
44 N.W. 761 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1890)
Orient Insurance Co. v. Sloan
36 N.W. 388 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1888)
Coe v. Manseau
22 N.W. 155 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1885)
Mann v. Flower
5 N.W. 365 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 Wis. 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/endter-v-lennon-wis-1879.