|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WALSH v. SMYTH, 23
rassed, and entirely uninfluenced by this decree; and there can be
no occasion to set it aside to let in his proofs, and to rehear this
case for any such purpose. And besides, for aught that appears,
or has been shewn, there are no assets real or personal, which were
the property of the late plaintiff Casenave, that can or may be in
any manner covered or protected by this injunction, even if it were
made perpetual.
It has been urged, that so much of this decree as dissolves the
injunction has been improvidently made; because it was awarded
in a case to which the intestate of the petitioner had been a party;
and that since his death it has been dissolved without his represen-
tative having been made a party, or being notified to revive.
It is true, that an abatement of a suit, in which an injunction
had been granted, does not in strictness immediately and of itself
dissolve the injunction; because the injunction, as a judgment of
the court, gives a present vested right which must stand until re-
versed or revoked by the court itself. And it is therefore, a gene-
ral rule, founded on the liberality of the court, that, in all such
cases of abatement, to prevent the representatives of the deceased
from being taken by surprise, notice must be given to them to
revive, or that the injunction be dissolved, (h)
In this case the injunction has been dissolved, without any such
notice; and, therefore, the only question now is, whether, looking
to all the circumstances of this case, it might have been dissolved
without any actual notice to the legal representatives of the late
plaintiff Casenave?
According to the English authorities, such a notice, when re-
quired to be given, is in general very peremptory and short, usual-
ly not more than a week, (i) But the deceased party may have,
in feet, no legal representatives, or they may be numerous and dis-
persed, or they may reside abroad, so that it would be impossible
or very difficult to give them actual notice, (j) Where the repre-
sentative was not a resident of this state, I have ordered notice to
be entered on the docket to revive before the next term, or that the
injunction then stand dissolved; and in that case I declared, that
(k) Chandos v. Talbot, Sel. Ca, Cha. 24; White v. Hayward, 2 Ves. 461; Forum
Rom. 198; Eden Ing. 93; 2 Mad. Cha. 533; 1 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 287.—(i) Stuart
v. Ancell, 1 Cox, 411; Hill v. Hoare, 2 Cox, 50.—(j) Carter v. Washington, 1 Hen.
and Mun. 203.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
