Rigas v. . Livingston
16 Bedell 20, 70 N.E. 107, 178 N.Y. 20 (1904)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injunction binds only the parties named in the action, their agents, servants, and those acting in collusion or combination with them. It does not restrain independent third parties who are not connected to the named defendants, even if they have knowledge of the injunction.
Facts:
- The plaintiff operated a fruit stand on a public sidewalk in front of a store occupied by Levy.
- Levy, the tenant of the store, wanted the stand removed and had previously asked city authorities to take action.
- The plaintiff secured an injunction against two city officials, the commissioner of public works and the superintendent of the bureau of incumbrances, to prevent them from interfering with his stand.
- Separately, Levy's son-in-law, Rosenblum, who was Levy's landlord, initiated dispossess proceedings against Levy.
- Levy defaulted in the dispossess proceedings, and a warrant for his removal was issued.
- Acting under the authority of the dispossess warrant, a city marshal (Loewenthal) and the landlord's attorney (Dickman) removed and destroyed the plaintiff's fruit stand.
- Levy, Loewenthal, and Dickman were all aware of the injunction that protected the stand from interference by the city officials.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued two city officials in the New York Supreme Court to enjoin them from interfering with his fruit stand.
- The trial court (Special Term) granted a temporary injunction against the defendant city officials.
- After the stand was destroyed, the plaintiff initiated contempt proceedings in the Special Term against Levy, Dickman, and Loewenthal.
- The Special Term found Levy, Dickman, and Loewenthal guilty of civil contempt and fined them.
- Levy, the appellant, appealed the contempt order to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the Special Term's contempt order without a written opinion.
- The Appellate Division then granted Levy leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, certifying a question of law for its review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injunction against specific government officials bind a non-party who, while aware of the injunction, acts independently and not as an agent of or in collusion with the enjoined officials?
Opinions:
Majority - Cullen, J.
No. An injunction does not bind a non-party who is not an agent of or in collusion with the enjoined parties. The court reasoned that the power to grant injunctions, as defined by the Code of Civil Procedure, authorizes restraining defendants, not the entire world. While non-parties can be bound if they are servants, agents, or acting in combination with the enjoined parties, that was not the case here. The individuals who removed the stand were acting under the process of a different court in a landlord-tenant dispute, not on behalf of or in connivance with the city officials named in the injunction. Although their action in destroying the stand constituted an illegal trespass for which they could be held liable, it did not constitute contempt of court because they were not subject to the injunction's command.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of a court's injunctive power, affirming that it is not an in rem order that binds the public at large. It establishes that knowledge of an injunction alone is insufficient to hold a non-party in contempt for actions that contravene the order. The ruling reinforces the principle of privity in enforcement, requiring a direct connection—such as agency or collusion—between the non-party and the enjoined party. This protects independent actors from contempt liability, even if their separate actions incidentally achieve the result the injunction was meant to prevent, thereby distinguishing contempt from other civil wrongs like trespass.
