England v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Iowa

England v. Johnson

53 N.W. 268, 86 Iowa 751

DecidedOctober 20, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 53 N.W. 268 (England v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

England v. Johnson, 53 N.W. 268, 86 Iowa 751 (iowa 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Granger, J.

The plaintiff was the owner of the building in which the nuisance was, in the injunction proceeding, adjudged to have been kept. In, a contempt proceeding the plaintiff was adjudged in contempt for a violation of the injunction, and a fine and imprisonment imposed. It is said that the judgment in such proceeding is not sustained by the evidence. We think it is. It is true that it does not appear that the plaintiff was active in keeping the saloon, but it was actively kept by one Block, with the undoubted knowledge and assent of the plaintiff, in violation of the terms of the injunction. It would serve no good purpose to set out the evidence. Upon separate examinations we are agreed that the judgment has ample support. The point that the injunction was dissolved by the decisions in the Bowman [8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 689, 1062] and Leisy cases [10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 681] is the same as that presented and disposed of in McGlasson v. Johnson, ante, page 477, and needs no further notice. The judgment is affirmed.

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

Granger, J.

The plaintiff was the owner of the building in which the nuisance was, in the injunction proceeding, adjudged to have been kept. In, a contempt proceeding the plaintiff was adjudged in contempt for a violation of the injunction, and a fine and imprisonment imposed. It is said that the judgment in such proceeding is not sustained by the evidence. We think it is. It is true that it does not appear that the plaintiff was active in keeping the saloon, but it was actively kept by one Block, with the undoubted knowledge and assent of the plaintiff, in violation of the terms of the injunction. It would serve no good purpose to set out the evidence. Upon separate examinations we are agreed that the judgment has ample support. The point that the injunction was dissolved by the decisions in the Bowman [8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 689, 1062] and Leisy cases [10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 681] is the same as that presented and disposed of in McGlasson v. Johnson, ante, page 477, and needs no further notice. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 N.W. 268, 86 Iowa 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/england-v-johnson-iowa-1892.