|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
616 THE CAPE SABLE COMPANY'S CASE.
injunction issued, without bond, to prevent land from being sold
under an execution, founded on a judgment against the legal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paid for shortly thereafter; that a deed for the same was soon after prepared, but
not executed by Watkins, owing to his negligence, until the 5th of March, 1812;
although the plaintiff had, many years before, paid the purchase money; and had,
at that time, been in actual possession of the land fourteen or fifteen years. That
about the month of February, 1804, the plaintiff purchased of Watkins ninety acres
more of the same tract of land, and also a small parcel of another tract, for which
the plaintiff agreed to pay five hundred pounds; the whole of which had been long
since paid; but for which land he had not obtained a deed until the 5th of March,
1812; although he had had possession thereof, under the contract, seven or eight years.
That after the plaintiff had purchased the last parcel of said land, received the posses-
sion and paid the purchase money, two several judgments were recovered by the de-
fendant Yates for the use of the defendant Armatt against the said Joseph Watkins;
which judgments appear to have been assigned to the defendant Duvall, by him to
the defendant John N. Watkins, and by him to the defendant the Bank. That upon
the other judgment obtained in October, 1802, by the state for the use of the defen-
dant Brogden, considerable payments had been made, which had not been credited.
And that executions had been issued upon those judgments, and laid upon the lands
so purchased by the plaintiff. Whereupon this bill prayed for an injunction to stay
further proceedings on the said executions so far as related to the said lands; and
for general relief, &c.
22d October, 1817. —KILTY, Chancellor. —The hill is not sworn to, and there is no
bond. These defects might be supplied; but, on perusing the bill, I am not satisfied,
that an injunction ought to be issued. It does not appear that the complainant has
any interest in the lands against that of creditors; or that it is competent for him to
enquire into the sum due. If, on the bill being sworn to and bond executed, the
counsel should file any observations in writing they will be considered.
Immediately after which the bill was sworn to; and the plaintiff's solicitor, in his
remarks filed as suggested, referred to and relied upon the case of Hampsen v. Ede-.
lin, 2 H. & J. 64, in which no bond was required; and he observed, that this was
not an application by a defendant at law to stay proceedings on a judgment against
him; but to prevent a sale of particular land, because it did not belong to the defen-
dant at law. Upon which the bill was again submitted.
29th October, 1817. —KILTY, Chancellor. —Since the order of the 22d instant, re-
marks in writing have been made by the counsel for the complainant, and the case
of Hampsen v. Edelin in this court has been referred to. No bond appears to have
been required in that case. Whereupon is is Ordered, that subpaena and injunction
issue as prayed.
It is to be observed, however, that one of the judgments exhibited was obtained
in 1802, be fore the last purchase of the land j but supposing the complainant to have
an equitable interest therein, the other circumstances, stated in the bill, may be
sufficient grounds for the injunction, which can be further considered at the hearing
of a motion for dissolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CROSS v. MULLIKIN. —This bill was filed on the 2d of April, 1824, by Thomas
Cross against Benjamin H. Mullikin, William Gwynn of John, William Wilkins,
Joseph Wilkins, and George Howard. The bill, after setting forth the facts and cir-
cumstances as stated in the following opinion of the Chancellor, prayed for special
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
