Case ID: edw-ch_2/html/0188-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Vice Chancellor:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Moat v. Holbein.
    
      March 10. 1834.
    While an injunction is in operation, a party ought to respect it, even though improperly issued.
    No motion, made after the dissolution of such an injunction» for an attachment, on the ground of an infringement of it while in force, can be sustained.
    A writ of injunction ought to be sufficiently explicit upon its face, by defining the property or matter enjoined, and so that a party may be thereby clearly advertised of what he is Hot to do.
    The bill (which was sworn to) contained no prayer for subpoena. An injunction had been issued, under the allocatur of the master; and, served. The writ of injunction was loose in its terms. IMirected the defendant to “ desist and retrain from selling, removing or disposing of any of the said partnership property or from collecting the partnership debts or other moniesbut contained no reference whatever to any particular firm or co-partnership business, j After service of the injunction, the complainant’s solicitor entered an ex parte order allowing his client to amend by adding to the bill a prayer for subpoena.
    A motion had been made to dissolve the injunction, which was granted, with costs, but the. amendment was permitted to stand.
    An application was now made (after the dissolution) for an atttachment for infringing the injunction while it was in operation.
    Mr. —-for the complainant.
    Mr. C. O’Connor for the defendant.
   The Vice Chancellor:

While an injunction is in operation, a party ought to respect it, even though the same may have been improperly issued: more particularly if it be connected with strong equitable circumstances. The case of Partington v. Booth, 3. Meriv. 148. is in point.

But I am strongly inclined to say, that no motion made after the dissolution of such an injunction for an attachment, on the ground of an infringement of it while in force, can be sustained.

There would be another ground for refusing the present application, even if what I have said were not sufficient. The injunction is not definite. It does not point out what particular partnership property is to be held sacred. A writ of injunction ought to be sufficiently explicit upon its face, by defining the property or matter enjoined, and so that a party may thereby be clearly advertised of what he is not to do. Motion denied.