which has been removed from a state court is brooght up by appeal or writ of error, and it does not appear on the face of the record that the citizenship of the parties was such as to give the circuit court jurisdiction upon removal, the judgment or decree of the circuit court will be reversed, and the cause sent back with instructions to remand it to the state COJ;lrt from which it. was improperly removed." Railway Co. v. Swan, BWpraj Hancock v. Holbrook. 112 U. S.229, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 115. In the present case it does not appear on the face of the that the citizenship of the .partieIJ was such as to give the circuit court jurisdiction upon· the removal. It follows that the judgment of the circuit court./lh9"u1d be reversed, and the causa sent back, with instructions to remand it to the state court from which it was removed. As the plaintiff in error. brought the case into the circuit court as wall as to· this court, he should not be allowed to recover costs, but should 'be condemned tCJ 'pay thettl. See Hancockv. Holbrook, sttpraj Timmons v. Land 0:>·· supra. The decree of the circuit court is reversed, with instructions to reand thll caul!le is ordered returned to that mand it to the state court from which it was removed. All costs of thiS'. and the circuit court are to be adjudged against the plaintiff in error. .
v. ARGENTINE MIN. Co.
(CircwU Oourt, D. Oolorado. November. 1880.
hcrolfmION-VIOLA;TION-PaOSBOUTION J'oa CONTEMPT.
Upon,tb.,filing of a l1ill alleging plaintiff's ownersbip ofa sUver mine tben In defendant'spossession, a 'preliminary injunotion was granted. restraining defendant from taking ore therefrom pending tbe suit.. Plainti1! thereupon ejected defend· ant, and bimself took possession. On application to the court, plaintl1! was ordered to restore tbe possession. and abstain from further interference therewitb pending the Buit. Held, tbat plaintiff was not also punishable for contempt as for a tionof his own injuncti,on,as it did not in· terms forl1id bim to take possession.
In Equity·. 'Prosecution for contettlpt in violating an injunction. The bill alleged plaintiff's ownership of a ('ertain silver mine in Colorado, then in the possession of the defendant; and upon his application a preliminary injunction was granted, restraining defendant from mining or disposing of any ore pending the suit. Afterwards plaintiff ejected .thedefendant, and himself took possession of the mine. Upon application by defendant, and proof of this fact, an order was made, · requiring plaintiff to restore possession, and to abstain from further interference therewith pending the suit. Thereupon defendant also moved for an order requiring plaintiff to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in Violating his own injunction. Dixon Reed,· for the motion. Thomas Campbell, contra. Before McCRARY and HALLETT, JJ. ·
'.t. O. LAND CO.
MCCRARY, 1,.1. A proceeding for contempt is in the nature of a criminal proceeding, and to be governed by the strict rules of construetionWhich prevail in 'crimln"aLcases. Its purpose is not to atr:ord a ,remedy to the party complaining, and who may have been injured,.bythe acts complained of. That-remedy must be sbught in another way. Its purpose is to the authority and dignity of the court. Haight v. Lucm, 36 Wis. 855. 2. We cannot hold that the complainant has subjected himself to this summary criminal proceeding by taking ore from the mine in dispute. Strictly speaking, the writ ofinjunction did not restrain the complainant from so doing. Its only effect was to restrain the defendant, and to subject its agents to punishment in case of a violation of the order. The injunction did not by its terms, or of its own force, forbid the complainant to interfere with the possession of the mine pending the suit, and therefore he cannot be held to anlilwer in this proceeding. It does not follow, however; that a complainant, in such a case as the present, can with impunity do the acts which, at his instance, the defendant has been resttained from doing. Where, as in this case, the evident purpose of the writ is to preserve the existing status of property in litigation until a final adjudicating can be had, it is a gross abuse of the process of thecburt for the complainant to disregard his own injunction, after having by means thereof' tied the hands of his adversary; and no doubt the court has ample power to prevent or redress such abuse. In this case the court did redress it, by ordering the complainant to restore the property to defendant, and to abstain from any further interJerence with the possession thereof pending the suit. If defendant had desired and asked a dissolution of the injunction, the court Dlight have granted it, on the ground that complainant was no longer entitled to the exercise of the discretionary power of the court for his protection. See remarks of LYON, J., on the point, in Haighi v. Lucia, tuFa. Motion denied.
H.A!.LE'1'T, J., concu1'8.
(Oircwtt Oourt, D. Oregon. January 4, 1892.)
ILLEGAL ASSB88MBNT, WHEN TAX LEVIED ON KAY BE ENJOINED.
Where an assessor assessed alarge body of lands belonging to the plaintiff, of vari. ous values, at a uniform value, without reference to the local advantages of the various parts of the tract or tracts, and beyond the cash valne of the whole, and relatively at a much greater value than the lands of resident tax-payers, for the purpose of favoring the latter at the expense of the former, equity will restrain the collection of a tax levied upon such an assessment, when it further appears that the collection of the tax will cast a cloud upon the title of the plaintiff, and involve the party in a mUltiplicity of suits. .