Case ID: va_14/html/0956-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Chancellor.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Beal v. Gibson.
    February Term, 1810.
    1. Injunctions — “Until Answer” — Necessity for Motion to Dissolve. — where an. injunction is awarded “until the coming in of the answer,” it is of course, at an end when the answer comes in; so that it is unnecessary for the defendant to move to dissolve; but the plaintiff may move to reinstate.
    2. Same — Same—Reinstating.—in such case, if the injunction be not reinstated the bill is to be dismissed under the act of assembly, unless cause be shewn against it at the ensuing term after coming in of the answer.
    The injunction awarded in this case, in December last, was to stay proceedings at law, on the usual terms, until the answer came in, which was filed on the first day of this month; and now a motion was made to dissolve the injunction.
    
      
      See monographic note on- “Injunctions" appended to Claytor v. Anthony, 15 Gratt. 518.
    
   By the Chancellor.

The motion should have been to reinstate the injunction, or it was, of course, at an end, and the clerk might give a certificate thereof, as in the case of an actual dissolution; for it was not intended to avoid in any case, the effect of the act of the legislature, by changing the form of the practice: and a case like the present is to be dismissed, under the act, as if the injunction had actually been dissolved, unless cause be shewn against it, as in other cases^