GIBSON v. TILTON

GIBSON v. TILTON.

On a motion to dissolve an injunction, objections of every kind to the answer may
be made, and are then in order; and it is a general rule, that if the facts on which
the equity of the injunction rests are denied, the injunction must be dissolved;
otherwise it must be continued to the final hearing.

An affidavit made in another State to an answer to a bill in this court, being an
authentication called for by a tribunal here, is a part of the judicial proceedings
of this State; and is not such a judicial proceeding, of another State, as comes
within the provision of the Constitution of the United States, and the acts of Con-
gress respecting the manner in which such proceedings shall be proved.

The aending of commissioners to other States to have testimony there taken; and,
the having of answers in chancery, and the like, authenticated there, by affidavit or
otherwise, has long been considered as one of the most common instances of the
interchange of courtesies among the nations of Europe; and is a kind of comity
which should be liberally extended among the States of this Union.

Although a person, who so testifies, or makes an affidavit abroad, cannot be proceeded
against criminally here; yet a party here, who should knowingly use such spurious
evidence, might be punished here for practising an imposition upon the court.

This bill was filed on the 2d of September, 1826, by Eayette
Gibson against James Tilton, in which it is alleged, that owing to
various circumstances, the defendant Tilton had recovered a judg-
•ment at law against the plaintiff Gibson, for a large sum of money
'Which he had discovered was really and in equity not due to him.
Whereupon it was prayed that an injunction might be granted to
stay execution, and for general relief, &c. An injunction was
ordered as prayed;—after which the defendant put in his answer,
.and gave notice of a motion to dissolve the injunction.

23d July, 1827.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This motion for a dis-
'Solution of the injunction standing ready for hearing, and the
solicitors of the parties having been fully heard, the proceedings
were read and considered.

It appears, that the defendant is a resident of the State of Dela-
ware, where, after subscribing his name to his answer, he swore to
its truth, which acts are certified by the judge in these words :—
" Sworn and subscribed this twenty-sixth day of April, A. D.
1827, before Kensey Johns, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware." To which is subjoined a certificate, in
the usual form, by the clerk of New-Castle county, in the State
of Delaware, that Kensey Johns was then Chief Justice.

It was objected, that the answer was insufficient; was not
properly sworn to; and that the certificate was not in the form
prescribed by the act of Congress of the 26th of May, 1790, ch. 11,