McLane v. Manning, 60 N.C. 60, 1 Win. 60 (1864)

June 1864 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

60 N.C. 60, 1 Win. 60

RACHEL McLANE Admr. of WILLIAM H. McLANE against JOHN MANNING, CHARLES B. MALLET and — BROWN.

A person.' actings as an officer of tlie law under a judibial order or judgment ought not to ba made a patty defendant to a bill for an injunction, to restrain the execution of tuch order or judgment.

The State Courts have no jurisdiction to restrain persons from acting under the orders or judgments of the Confederate Courts, unless they have been obtained by fraud. Whether they have jurisdiction then, this court decline^ to express any opinion. They have no jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the Confederate Conrts.

The cases of Edney -vs. King. 4 Ired. Eq. 465,, Lackay vs. Curtis, 6 Ired. Eq. 199 and Witherspoon vs. Carmichael, 6 Ired. Eq. 143, cited and approved.

The court can not give relief on the ground of frauds, unless it be positively and distinctly alleged.

The bill charges that a corporation’was created by the General Assembly ot this State for the purpose of working the Goal and Iron Mines at Egypt, in Chatham county,' by 'the name of “ the Governor's Creek Coal and Iron Manu-" factoring and Transportation Company/7 that they engaged extensively in the business for which they yvere created, and the original plaintiff William H. McLane, was employed as mining engineer and manager in 1852, and has continued' to act as such until November 1862, lie being also a large shareholder — rand the largest shareholder who . is a citizen of the Confederate States — that nine-tenths of the stockholders are citizens of the United States; that the Company are indebted to him in the sum of $4,810, or thereabouts, for arrears of salary and advances made by him, that suitable buildings bad been erected by Mm by order of the stockholders, for the officers'of the company, and that one of them has been'oecupi ed by him, by assignment of the company, as a dwelling house - ever since it was built, and is now occupied by him ; the plaintiff was served with process from tne District .Court of the Confederate States for the District.of North Carolina, to appear at said Court to be holden at Goldsborough, on --of Novembcr> 1861,-to make a disclosure of all he knew concerning the company and its affairs : lie appeared at Court and filed his garnishment, buck proceedings -were had that an order was made by the District Judge at Chambers, that the plaintiff should be removed from Ms office of manager, and a successor appointed, and in obedience thereto, -Manning, the receiver, appointed J.- N. Clegg manager. Clegg ■was afterwards removed by order of the Court made without notice ol any proceeding intended to be had in the matter, and the defendant Drown and Mal-lett appointed "maña cor--.. Tne plaintiff charges that in the proceedings of the D’strh-t Coast, the requirements of the sequestration act were not pursued, and that r.o decree sequestrating xho' Egypt property has ever 'been made. He charges that secret information lias been given by one of-the -.hiéndante, not saying which defendant, nor what the. inlVriautlon was. nor that it was false, and he also charges-that tr.e “ defend,mis Drown and Mullett, have from the iin-t Court hold i:: November 1861 to the last of November lbim, been unceasing in their efforts to have him (the-plaintiff) removed, without cause, and solely with the view of being put into the management themselves.'" The bill contains no other charge cr insinuation of fraudulent conduct or bad motives on the part of the defendants. It then charges that an order was made by the District Court at November'Term 1S62, that the defendant should be turned out of possession of the house in which lie dwells, and that notice in due form of law had been given to ,him that the order would be executed1 on the Monday next following the day on which the bill was presented to the Judge. The prayer is for an injunction.

An injunction was issued in pursuance of the order of a Judge in vacation. At the return term the defendants demurred to the bill and the cause was transferred to this Court by consent.. '.

During the pending of the suit the plaintiff died aud Rachel McLano, his administratrix, was made plaintiff.

No counsel ror the plaintiff in this court.

Phillips tor the defendants.

Battle,,J.

The fiat for an injunction in this case was made by me in vacation. The application for it was presented under snch circumstances, as to allow me no time for an examination of the authorities bearing upon the questions involved, and very'little opportunity for reflection. Having now bad the aid of an argument and of a, conference with my brethren, I have,-after mature consideration, come to the conclusion with them, that the order was improvidently granted, and that the demurrer must be sustained, and the bill dismissed.

It is necessary for us-to notice only one or two of the questions raised by the pleadings, as they are sufficient to dispose of the ease.

The defendant Manning, appointed a receiver under an act of the.Provisional Congress of the Confederate States, entitled “ an Act for the Sequestration óf the estates,- property and effects sf alien enemies, and for an indemnity of •the pitizens of the Confederate States, and persons aiding the same in the existing war with the United States,, (see acts of the third, session of the Provisional Congress, No. 269,) was only an officer of the law, and was as such, improperly made a party defendant; and as to him, the bill must therefore, be dismissed with costs. Edney vs. King, 4 Ired. Eq. 465. Lackay vs. Curtis, 6 Ired. Eq. 199.

As to the other defendants,'Mallett and Brown, if the Court cóffid entertain 'jurisdiction"at all to restrain them from acting under the orders from the Confederate Court, it must be on the ground of fraud practiced,by'these defendants in obtaining the orders. Now, in this case no such fraud is positively and distinctly charged in the bill. In one place it is said that one of the defendants — whether Mallett, Brown, or Manning, is not stated — was a secret iniormer, but whether the information given was true or false, is not alleged. In another part of the bill it is charged that “the defendants Brown'and Mallett, have, from the first court held in November 1881‘until the la3t held in November 1862, been’unceasing in their efforts to have him (the plaintiff’s intestate) removed without cause, and solely with the view of being put. into the management themselves.’' These are rather insinuations of fraud tiran positive and distinct charges of it, and when ■ taken m connection'with the fact, that the relief sought is not put upon the ground of fraud, but upon ^ther and different grounds, the court can, not make that the basis of a decree for relief, when there are no other elements of equity. See Witherspoon vs. Carmichael, 6 Ired. Eq. 143.

This court lias no jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the Confederate .Court; and without deciding whether it might not restrain parties from' availing themselves of its orders or 'decrees when obtained by ffaud positively charged and proved or admitted, it will not interfere in the absence of such allegations. The demurrer must be sustained, and the bill dismissed with costs as to these defendants also.