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 acting as an officer of the law under a judicial order ¡or judgment ought not to be made a party defendant to a bill for an injunction, to restrain the execution of such order or judgment.

The State Conrts 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 declines to express any opinion. They have no jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the Confederate Conrts.

The cases of Edney vs. Ming, 4 Jred. Eq. 465, La'okay vs. Curtis, 6 Ired. Eq. 199 and Witherspoon vs. Carmichael, 6 Ire'd. Eq. 143, cited and approved. , '

The court can cot 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 Coal and Iron Mines at Egypt, in Chatham county, by the name of “ the Governor’s Creek Coal and Iron Manufacturing and Transportation Company,”' that they engaged extensively in the business for which they were created, and the original plaintiff William II. McLane, was employed as mining engineer and manager in 1852, and has continued to act as such until November 1862, he being also a large shareholder — and 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 Mm in the sum of $4,<?70, or thereabouts,- for arrears of salary and advances made by him, that suitable buildings had been erected by him by order of the stockholders, for the. officers of the company, and that §ne of them has been occupied 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 Oour-t of the Confederate States for the District of North Carolina, to appear at said Court to be holden at Goldsborongh, on-of November, 1861, to make a disclosure of all he knew concerning the company and its affairs : he appeared at Court and filed his garnishment. Such proceedings -were had that an order was made by' the District Judge at Chambers, that the plaintiff should ho removed from his 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 not’oe of any proceeding intended to be had in the matter, and the defendant Drown and Mal-lott appointed managers. The plaint:ff charges that in the proceedings of the District Court, tne requirements of the sequestrationt act were not pursued, and that no decree sc-’ qucstrutlng tho Egypt property has ever been made. -Ho charges that secret information Las been given by one of the defendant-», not saying which defendant, nor what the information was, nor that it wan fabe, and he also charges that tie "defendants Blown and Mril'i-tt/L/.ve from the first Court held in November 1861 to the last of November 1862, been unceasing in -their efforts to have hi u (the plaintiff) removed, witl:out cause, and solely with the view of being pat into the management, themselves.” The bill contains no other charge cr insinuation of fraudulent con-duci'or bad motives on the part of the defendants. It then charges that an order was made by the District Court at November Term 1862, that the defendant,should be turned. out of poaseasicn of the house-in which heRwells, and that notice in due form of law had been given to. him that the order would be executed oh the Monday next following the clay on which the hill 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 bid and the cause was transferred to this Court by consent.

During the pending of the suit the plaintiff died and Rachel McLane. Ids administratrix, was made plaintiff.

No counsel ror the plaintiff in.this court.

Phillips for the defendants,

Batxlu, O'.

The fiat for an injunction in tin's case was made by me in vacation. The application for it was presented under such circumstances, as rid allow mo no time for an examina'ion of' the authorities bearing upon the questions invoi r.--d. and very little c pportunity icr reflection. Having now had the aid of- mi argument ami of .a conference with vny brethren, I h.fwe. after mature consideration, come, to‘the conclusion with them, that the order ■was improvidom;!;/ 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 case.

The defendant Manning, appointed a receiver under an act of the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States, entitled “ an Act for the Sequestration of the estates, property and effects sf alien enemies, and for an indemnity of tbo citizens 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. 209,) 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 could entertain jurisdiction at all to restrain them from acting under the orders from the Confederate Court, it must b'e 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 informer, 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 1861 until the last held in November 1862, been unceasing in their efforts to have him (the plaintiffs intestate) removed without danse, and solely with the view of being put into the management themselves.” These are rather insinuations of fraud than positive and distinct charges of it, and when taken tu connection with the fact, that the relief sought-is not'put upon the ground of fraud, but upon other 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 has 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 fraud positively charged and proved or admitted, it will not interfere in the absence of such allegations. The demurrer must be sustained, agdthe bill dismissed with costs as to these defendants also.