clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 504   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

504 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
decree. The difficulties suggested by the defendant's counsel
with regard to enforcing the final decree, equally apply to an
injunction issued at an earlier stage of the cause. In every
case, if an attachment be applied for and issued for a violation
of an injunction, the inquiry is, has the defendant disobeyed
the order of the Court ? and I cannot perceive why there will
not be as much embarrassment in determining this question if
the injunction be issued in the commencement as at the conclu-
sion of the cause. The argument is, that the defendant ought
to be informed by the decree of the Court what he is to do or
to leave undone, and that unless he is so informed upon the
return of the attachment, the question will be presented
whether he has done that which was necessary to be done to
prevent the results against which the complainant asks the aid
of the Court. But will not this precise question come up in
the case of an injunction issued at an earlier stage of the cause ?
and if so, and it be conceded or shown that an injunction like
the present may issue at such earlier stage, there would seem
to be no reason why it should not issue at its conclusion. I
therefore think, whether the injunction be merely auxiliary to
the relief prayed by the bill, or be, as it is in this case, the ulti-
mate object of the suit, the form in which it was asked in this
case is no valid objection to it.
But though I think there is no valid objection to the form
in which the aid of the Court is invoked, I entertain strong
doubts upon the question of jurisdiction. The case appears to
me in its essential features not distinguishable from that of
Amelung vs. Seekamp, 9 G. & J., 468, and I have not been
able to discover how it can be brought within any of the ex-
ceptions to the general rule then announced by the Court of
Appeals. It is not, I think, shown here that the complainant
may not " obtain perfect pecuniary compensation in the ordi-
nary course of law;" " that it is a case of trespass going to the
destruction of the inheritance, or that the mischief is remedi-
less." I am not satisfied that the mischief Complained of " is
irreparable," or that the interference of the Court, by way of
injunction, is necessary " to suppress a multiplicity of suits and

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 504   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives