|
solved without allowing time to give
good security. — Williams v. JEM, 194.
The injunction bond should cover the
whole amount of the supersedeas judg-
ment, 194.
The injunction cannot be dissolved if the
answer be evasive, or does not deny the
facts on which the plaintiff's equity
rests, 195.
Although a defendant * cannot directly
compel his co-defendant to answer, vet
the plaintiff may be forced to urge for-
ward, so as to enable the defendant
to move for a dissolution. — Jones v. Ma-
gill, 198; Tong v. Oliver, 199.
The answer of an administrator if contra-
dictory will not be sufficient to dissolve
the injunction. — Tong v. Oliver, 199.
After the dissolution of the injunction the
plaintiff may proceed on his bill for re-
lief at the final hearing. — Paul v. Nixon,
201.
On a motion to dissolve, the facts set forth
in the answer are alone to be regarded,
not the opinions of the defendant. —
Chase v. Manhardt, 835.
If it appears that there still remains a dis-
pute between the parties the injunction
is continued, 336.
But if there appears to be an overcharge
or mere mistake in a judgment at law,
it may be corrected without ordering a
new trial, 350.
If the facts on which the plaintiff's equity
rests are positively denied, the injunc-
tion must be dissolved. — Gibson v. Til-
ton, 355.
An injunction may be granted and con-
tinued as a suitable auxiliary to the
appointment of a receiver. — William-
son v. Wilson, 428.
The mode of obtaining a dissolution of the
injunction where the suit has abated by
the death of a party. — Griffith v. Bro-
naugh, 548.
No injunction will be granted to stay pro-
ceedings at law until a bond has been
given. — Billingslea v. Gilbert, 566.
The penalty of the injunction bond to
stay proceedings at law should be at
least double the amount of principal,
interest, and costs, 566.
If the surety be insufficient the party may
be allowed time to give good surety;
but not if the court has been imposed
upon, 566.
Instead of a bond the defendant at law
may deposite the amount with the re-
gister, 566.
Where the dissolution of an injunction
has been obtained by fraud, it may be
reinstated, 563.
An injunction to stay waste or trespass
may be granted here in any case in
which it would be granted according to
the English authorities. —Duvall v. Wa-
ters, 576.
|
Where waste has actually been commit-
ted, the plaintiff may under an injunc-
tion bill nave an account of waste com*
mitted, 577.
According to the English authorities an
injunction cannot be granted to stay
waste, if the title be denied, 570, 577.
But in cases of patent right, nuisance, and
some others, an injunction may be
granted pendents lite at law, 577—584.
Here an injunction may be granted to stay
waste pending an action at law, or a
suit in this court to try the right, 580;
The Attorney General v. Norwood, 581;
Cook v. Garretson, 581; Flannagan v.
Krips, 582; Gittings v. Dew, 583.
But if the plaintiff fails or refuses to in-
stitute a suit to establish his right, he
can have no injunction to stay trespass
upon land his title to which is denied. —
Duvall v. Waters, 585.
If after the plaintiff has filed his bill here
to establish his right, waste is threat-
ened or committed, he should apply
here for an injunction by petition, not
by bill, 585.
An injunction to stay waste pending a
suit to try the right will not prevent the
occupying tenant from making the or-
dinary uses of the land, 584.
After a judgment at law the injunction
may be perpetuated, dissolved, or lim-
ited* according to the extent of that
judgment. — Hill v. Bowie, 594.
INSOLVENCY.
A person in solvent circumstances may
pay as he pleases, but when he falls into
a condition of insolvency that privilege
ceases, and,, his effects must be distri-
buted equally or pro rata among all his
creditors. — Williamson v. Wilson, 425.
INVESTMENT.
Money in court or in the hands of its
trustee, may be invested so as to be
made productive pending the litiga-
tion. — Latimer v. Hanson, 56.
ISSUE OF FACT.
In a creditor's suit if a claim be strongly
litigated and of difficult investigation,
an issue may be sent out. —Ringgold v.
Jones, 89.
It is not indispensably necessary in any
case that an issue should be made up;
it is only resorted to where the weight
of the evidence can be better estimated
by a jury. — Fornshill v. Murray, 485.
JUDICIARY.
The colonial courts of vice admiralty and
their jurisdiction. — The Chancellor's
case, 607; Hastings v. Plater, 613.
A history of the independency of the ju-
diciary, 607—615.
The mode of constituting a chancellor
|
