|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE. 615
on the 10th of December, 1823, Ordered, that the plaintiffs give
bond as prayed, or shew cause on the 10th of January then next;
Provided, that notice be given, &c.
7th May, 1824. —JOHNSON, Chancellor. —On the 21st of April
last, after an attentive examination of the arguments pro and con,
on the motion to dissolve the injunction, which had been issued in
this cause, and after a minute and particular scrutiny, and the best
reflections I could bestow on the subject, the injunction was con-
tinued, for the reasons then given in detail. At the last term, and
when the case stood in the same situation as at the former argu-
ment, my attention has again been called to the subject, and the
cause elaborately argued, relying on the part of the defendants,
that the injunction ought not to have issued without bond and se-
curity; and that it should be dissolved, unless such bond should
be given by a prescribed day,
On the part of the complainants it was insisted, that, supposing
a bond to have been necessary, yet as the injunction was obtained
without one, that the irregularity of issuing it was waived by the
answer. I have again considered the case and see no reason to
retract from the opinion pronounced on the former occasion; nor
can I discover any error in granting the injunction without bond;
if, in any case a bond should be dispensed with, this is one; and
the decisions of my predecessors in office fully warranted the issu-
ing of this injunction. The time, the manner, the effect, and the
immediate ruinous consequences from the hasty and unwarranted
judgment demanded the immediate interposition of this court;
and, unless compelled to demand an injunction bond, it should be
dispensed with.
In the case of Hampsen v. Edelin, (f) no bond was given to
prosecute the injunction that issued. In that case, an execution
was laid on a piece of land, that the complainant had purchased
and obtained a bond for the conveyance of, prior to the rendition
of the judgment. Also in the case of Stewart v. Yates, (g) an
(f) 2 H. & J. 64.
(g) STEWART v. YATES. —This bill was filed, on the 22d of October, 1817, by
William Stewart against John Yates, Thomas Armatt, William Brogden, Lewis
Duvall, John N. Watkins, and The President, Directors and Company of The
Farmers' Bank of Maryland. The bill states, that some time previous to the 23d
of March, 1797, a purchase was made of Allen Quynn by Joseph Watkins, of a tract
of land which was conveyed to him accordingly, with an agreement, that Watkins
should afterwards convey to the plaintiff a certain portion of it containing about
sixty-three acres, which had been previously set apart for him; and which he
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
