|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WALSH v. SMYTH. 13
good conscience, and that a writ of injunction might be issued
to restrain the defendants from proceeding at law.
This bill was sworn to by the plaintiff Walsh on the 27th of
July, 1797, and soon after laid before the Chancellor,
29th July, 1797,—HANSON, Chancellor.—Injunction cannot
issue until a bond to each of the parties to be injoined, &c, shall
hare been filed, (a)
After which the bill, as appears by an endorsement on it, was
filed on the first of August, 1797, and on the next day there were
filed five separate injunction bonds, given by the plaintiff Robert
Walsh alone, with two sureties to those stated in the bill, as it then
stood, to be the several holders of the bonds for the purchase
money. These injunction bonds were inclosed in a letter to the
Register, from the plaintiff's solicitor, in which he says, (I believe
the securities are sufficient' It does not appear, that they were
by any note or writing approved by the Chancellor; but the injunc-
tion was immediately issued, and on the same day served on the
clerk of the General Court, in which court the judgments had been
recovered, or the suite were then depending.
There does not appear to have been any petition or written ap-
plication to amend the bill, but upon the docket there is this entry,
'December term, 1798, leave to amend bill by adding parties,
amended bill filed.' There was, however, in fact, no separate
amended bill ever filed; but instead thereof, the original bill was
amended by making sundry interlineations, and then it is certi-
fied at the end of it, that con the 19th December, 1798, Robert
Walsh made oath, that this bill, as amended, is true to the best of
his knowledge, Samuel Harvey Howard.'
There appears to hare been several interlineations made in the
original bill; but, from the hand-writing of all, as well as from the
nature of some of them, it is difficult to determine whether they are
to be considered as mere corrections of the first draft of the bill,
made before it was submitted to the Chancellor, or as amendments
made under the leave. On adverting to the day of filing the bill,
and on comparing the original bill itself with the writ of injunction,
in which the name of Richard Emory w not mentioned, it appears,
that the following interlined sentence, 'and hath also endorsed and
assigned one other of the said bonds, conditioned for the payment
(a) Williams f. Hall, 1 Bland, 194, note; Billingslea v. Gilbert, 1 Bland, 566.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
