|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MCKIM v. ODOM. 413
and sale of the schooner Beauty, is set forth as in the first bill;
and after stating as before, that the proceeds of sale were remitted
by the Cyane, the plaintiffs aver by this bill, that the specie was
received from the Cyane by the defendant Anderson, as the agent
of the defendant Law; and that Anderson had carried it to Phila-
delphia, and covertly transmitted the whole or the greater part of
it thence to Baltimore, where he had fraudulently deposited it in the
Franklin Bank in his own name. The particulars of which alleged
fraudulent transactions are fully described in the bill, in which it is
alleged, that they were not known to the plaintiffs when they filed
their first bill. And it is further alleged, that the defendant Law
is insolvent and unable to pay his debts; and that the defendant
Harrison had been actually discharged under the insolvent law.
Whereupon the plaintiffs prayed, that upon the dismissal of their
appeal from the order of the 15th October last; and of their bill
filed on the 23d of June, 1827, an injunction might be granted
upon this bill to prevent the proceeds from being removed from
the bank in which they had been deposited by the defendant
Anderson; and for general relief, &c.
20th June, 1828.—BLAND, Chancellor.—I would hate it dis-
tinctly understood, that I disclaim the power to pass any order
relative to a subject matter appealed from, pending an appeal by
virtue of which the power of this court, in relation to such subject,
may or can be decided by the Court of Appeals, to have been sus-
pended. But I am of opinion, not however without some doubt,
that I may be allowed, pending an appeal from an interlocutory
order dissolving an injunction, made on the bill and answer alone,
to grant another injunction upon a bill in nature of an amended
bill between the same parties, to be issued after such dismissal or
termination of the appeal, as leaves the injunction dissolved ac-
cording to the order appealed from. In this case however, it
appears to me to be fit and proper, in order to prevent a vexatious
renewal or continuance of the injunction on a state of facto which
has been already considered and adjudicated upon; that the bill
this day filed, and now submitted, should be considered as an
amendment to that filed on the 23d of June, 1827; and that it
should be so taken and answered accordingly. But as it appears,
that the new facts set forth in this bill are chiefly, or altogether
within the knowledge of the defendants Law, Harrison, and Ander-
son, it is therefore reasonable, that the injunction, to be issued
after the termination of the appeal, should be subject to a motion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
