A demurrer in this case having been sustained, and the bill
which sought to enjoin the defendant sheriff from selling under
execution issued in
Perez v. Fernandez, ante, p.
220 U. S. 224,
dismissed on the same grounds on which the same court refused to
allow defendants in that suit, who were grantors of the plaintiffs
in this suit, to come in and defend, and this Court having reversed
the judgment in
Perz v. Fernandez, and it appearing that
the two cases were so inseparably united in the mind of the court
below that the error in the one controlled its action in the other,
held that the judgment in this case be also reversed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE White delivered the opinion of the Court.
This record involves the bill filed by Perfecto Blanco in the
lower court to enjoin the sale of the property under execution in
the case of Fernandez and Perez. It concerns, therefore, the
proceedings in the equity cause and the right to reopen the decree
entered in the same which we have just disposed of. As stated in
that case, the application for injunction
pendente lite in
this case was considered by the court along with the request to be
allowed
Page 220 U. S. 234
to appear and defend in the equity cause, made by Perez and
Ochoa. When the court temporarily stayed the execution of the
judgment, a suggestion was made to counsel by the court that in
this case a demurrer be filed to the bill pending the delay which
must transpire in considering the subject of the right to enjoin
along with, or in connection with, the right of Perez and Ochoa to
appear and defend. When it was concluded that the two latter
persons had no such right, and the right to an injunction
pendente lite in this case was refused, the reason which
controlled the court in refusing to reopen and allow a defense in
the equity cause were filed as its reasons for sustaining the
demurrer and finally dismissing the bill in this case. As those
reasons, however, did not at all concern themselves with the
grounds of demurrer separately stated, but solely related to the
right to stay, by the process of injunction, the execution of the
unsatisfied judgment and the enforcement of the equity decree, we
think it plainly results that the decree rendered in this case must
be reversed because the two dases in the mind of the court were so
inseparably united that the error which led the court below to
refuse in the other case the right to reopen the cause controlled
its action in this.
The decree is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for
furthur proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
