Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

59 Mo. 174

Bloss v. Tacke

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided February 15, 1875

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1875-02-15

<p>1. Injunction — Final judgment in Subsequent motion to dissolve, when. — After an injunction is made perpetual by a final judgment, which is regular, the case is res adjudicata and the court cannot afterward entertain a motion to dissolve the injunction.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1901

2 state decisions

101875188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hough, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2It appears from the record in this cause, that in August, 1870, on the application of Leonard Bloss, the plaintiff, a temporary injunction was granted by the Common Pleas Court of Buchanan county, restraining the enforcement by execution of a certain judgment in favor of defendant Tache and against Bloss, alleged to have been entered up fraudulently and without authority, by one Thompson, after he had ceased to be a justice of the peace, which injunction was at the hearing, on the 3d day of February, 1871, made perpetual by a final judgment in the cause.

¶3Afterwards on the 27th day of October, 1873, defendant Tacke filed a motion to dissolve the injunction thus made perpetual, and on the 30th day of December, 1873, the court sustained said motion and awarded damages against the plaintiff. From this judgment the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

¶4We do not see by what authority the Common Pleas Court undertook, nearly three years after the rendition by it of a final judgment, to interfere with it in this manner.

¶5The motion did not seek to set aside the judgment for any irregularity, but its purpose and effect was to open up and reexamine the merits of a controversy which had become res judicata. The court had no power to annul its judgment in this way.

¶6The judgment is reversed ;

all the other judges concur.
/59/mo/174 · .json · Public domain