Spreckels v. Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co.

Temple, J. This is an appeal from an order refusing to dissolve a temporary injunction restraining the corporate defendant from further prosecuting an action already commenced by said defendant against the plaintiff in the courts of the Republic of Hawaii, and to prevent the other defendants, as directors of the corporate defendant, from furthering the prosecution of said action.

Defendants moved to dissolve the injunction upon the complaint without answer or counter-affidavit. They contend: 1. That the complaint does not state a cause of action; and 2. That the courts of this state cannot restrain residents within the state from prosecuting an action already pending before the injunction suit was commenced, except to prevent a multiplicity of suits, and the injunction is not sought for that purpose here.

It is evident that the second point is included in the first. There is really no question as to the power of the court, although appellant’s counsel seem to so regard it, and in doing so have, I think, greatly weakened their position. The courts of this state have the same power to restrain persons within the state from prosecuting actions in either domestic or foreign jurisdictions which courts of equity have elsewhere. The code, however, has regulated the exercise of the power, and prescribed the conditions which entitle litigants to the preventive writ.

Section 3423 of the Civil Code, so far as material here, reads as follows: “An injunction cannot be granted: 1. To stay a judicial proceeding pending at the commencement of the action in which the injunction is demanded, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of such proceedings; 2. To stay proceedings in a court of the United States; 3. To stay proceedings in another state upon a judgment of a court of that state.”

Respondent’s counsel contend that the operation of the first subdivision of the section must be limited to [379]the courts of this state. The section is found in part I of the fourth division of the Civil Code. That part treats of the general subject of relief. The first section found in this part reads as follows:

“Sec. 3274. As a general rule, compensation is the relief or remedy provided by the law of this state for the violation of private rights, and the means of securing their observance; and specific and preventive relief may be given in no other cases than those specified in this part of the Civil Code.”