|
ed for repairs and testing improve-
ments. — Rawlings v. Stewart, 22,
0n a bill for specific performance the
defendant being unable to make a valid
title, he was ordered to make the plain-
tiff a reasonable allowance for such im-
provements as would be beneficial to
any subsequent possessor-- Rawlings v.
Carroll, 76.
A bow, fide possessor ignorant of his ad-
versary's title may be allowed for such
improvements as enhance the value of
the property. — -Strike's case, 76.
A mala fide possessor can have no claim
to any such allowance, 77: McKomb v.
Kankey, 363.
A claim by a bona fide possessor for im-
provements may be discounted from
that made against him for rents and pro-
fits or for waste. -Strike's case, 79;
Rawlings v. Carroll, 76.
A mala fide meddler cannot be allowed
any thing for taxes, &c. in relief of the
property any more than for improve-
ments. — Strike's case, 83.
In opposition to a claim for dower the
heir can have no allowance for meliora-
tions and improvements. — H. K. Chase's
case, 232.
A decree for the sale of land may be of
such a nature as to leave the claim for
improvements to be adjusted by further
directions. — Strike's case, 70.
INFANT.
Money will not be paid out to a guardian
ad litem of an infant party. — Carrie v.
Clarke, 85.
Land might, before the act of 1785, ch.
72, s. 6, have been sold to pay debts
with the consent, according to the act of
1773, ch. 7, s. 2, of the guardian ad litem
of the infant heir. — Pue v. Dorsey, 140.
The proceeds of the sale of land devised
to a woman for life, remainder to her
children, paid to her husband as their
guardian on his giving bond. — Wells v.
Rolosan, 456, 457.
After a safe to effect a division the shares
awarded to the infants may be paid to
their mother on her giving bond to
account as their guardian. — Spurrier v.
Spurrier, 477.
INJUNCTION.
Orders to stay proceedings or the execu-
tion of a decree of this court treated as
injunctions. — Burch v. Scott, 123; Clap-
ham v. Thompson, 123.
Where an injunction has been obtained
against an executor or administrator, it
will be sufficient if the answer states
facts which must have been within the
knowledge of the testator only, upon
the belief of the executor or adminis-
trator to have the injunction dissolv-
ed. — Coale v. Chase, 137
88
|
In what cases on the Mil alone an injunc-
tion, if prayed, may be granted, and
how the bill must be verified. — Jones v,
Magill, 180; Jenifer v. Stone, 189; Paul
v. Nixon, 201.
How and under what circumstances on
the coming in of the answer there may
be a motion to dissolve, 180.
The rule further proceedings and the ex-
ceptions to the answer may be heard
and acted upon together with the motion
to dissolve, 181; Gibson v, Tilton, 353.
An injunction in extraordinary cases is
granted upon terms suited to the pecu-
liar circumstances, allowing a motion to
dissolve to be heard at an early day. —
Jones v. Magill, 182; McMechen v. Sto-
ry, 184; Jenifer v. Stone, 188; Diffen-
derffer v. Hillen, 190; Williamson v.
Wilson, 419.
Under the same bill a ne exeat as well as
an injunction may be granted. — Bryson
v. Petty, 182.
An injunction may be partially dissolved
on the defendant's giving bond, 182.
Where an injunction has been granted on
terms, leave to amend the bill will only
be granted without prejudice to those
terms. — McMechen v. Story, 184.
A defendant without waiting a subpaena
may answer immediately, and there-
upon move for a dissolution, 185.
Where the injunction has been granted
with leave to move for a dissolution
without answer, if the defendant does
answer it will be considered on the mo-
tion, 185.
Delay in applying for an injunction affords
a strong reason for refusing it, 185.
The discretionary power of commission-
ers to lay out a new road or street can-
not be restrained by injunction. — Worth-
ington v. Bicknell, 187; Diffenderffer v.
Hillen, 190; Pascault v. The Commis-
sioners of Baltimore, 584.
An injunction to stay the levying of what
is due when the party insists on levying
what is not due. — Jenifer v. Stone, 188.
Where there are several defendants all
must answer before there can be a mo-
tion to dissolve; but to this there are ex-
ceptions. — Jones v. Magill, 190; Stewart
v. Barry, 192; Williams v. Hall, 194;
Chapline v. Betty, 197; Tong v. Oliver,
199.
When the chancellor is absent from the
city where the court is held, an injunc-
tion may be issued with the sanction of
a disinterested solicitor, subject to the
approval of the chancellor. — Stewart v,
Berry, 101.
An injunction cannot be dissolved on a
consideration of the opposing title,
without an answer to the interrogatories
of the bill, 192.
If there be a defect in the injunction bond,
the injunction mil not therefore be dis-
|
