Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

RENTFROE v. DICKINSON.

Motions to dissolve injunctions, under our practice, are made without previous notice.

Such motions have been often allowed, in the case of non-resident defendants, before the coming in of the answer, when it appeared from the face of the bill that a decree could not be ultimately made. [See Code, 4444, 4445; 4 J. C. Rep. 173.]

So, it would be wrong to continue the injunction in any case where. it is obvious, no decree in favor of the complainant can be ultimately made.

If therefore, the excess complained of in the judgment enjoined be under the amount which gives the Court jurisdiction, the injunction will be dissolved.

Equity. — In this case a subpœna had been served, but the answer had not come in.

Per Curiam.

In England, there must be notice of a motion to dissolve. This is not our practice, as has been long settled, — motions to dissolve are made here without notice.

They never permit a, motion in England while a defendant is in contempt for not answering. As it respects foreign or non-resident defendants, these motions have been often allowed here, upon the ground that great delay and injustice might arise upon frivolous bills before the coming in of the answer, when it appeared from the face of the bill that a decree could not be ultimately made; in these cases the Court did not presume contumely.

The want of equity apparent upon the face of the bill is proper matter for a demurrer, and we have no doubts that a demurrer may be immediately looked into, with a view to a dissolution and to avoid an imputation of contempt, without being set down regularly for argument in the course of practice; we will consider it in that view, and let it be placed among the papers of the suit.

The bill discloses sufficient equity as to the $12, which is the real matter in dispute. The amount for which the suit at law was brought, is more than $50. It is the matter in dispute which must give jurisdiction to this court; and as it would be wrong to hold up the injunction when no decree can ultimately be made, let it be dissolved.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

RENTFROE v. DICKINSON
(Nov 1, 1805)