Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-02-27

district, at his chamber, for an Injunction
- judgment ofthe superior court of law,
held at Charlottesville.
He took time Co consider Of the motion ::
and this day delivered the following opini-
on:
The difficulty, if any, in the present case,
arises upon the constructive operation OF
the act OF the last assembly, passed on the
18th January, by which .4i6-martc counfv,
/ is made q part of the district for which
Il superior court of chancery is directed by
law to be holden in the town of Stanton
to determine this question, it may not be
; improper to examine the acts, by which
that, and the other superior courts of chan
Gerry, were established.
! BY the act of the legislature, passed on
the 23rd January, 1902, concerning the
high court of chancery, three superior
courts IN lieu thereof, were established:
one to be held in the town of Sfaunton, for
the district assigned to it: another to be
held In this place, for the district assigned
toit and the other to be he d i'm the CITY
OF Williamsburg, for the district assigned
| to it: part of the district assigned to the
Court of this place, was the county Of III
| 6cmGrle, comprchendng Charlottesville,
the seat OF two common law courts the
! Judges OF the superior courts of chancery,
| IN term, as well as in vacation, were to
have, and to exercise, within their reshec-
IlUe Districts, the same jurisdiction and
powers, as the high court of chancery, or
the Judge thereof Possessed, on the LIT Jan.
! in the year last mentioned
Il, supplemental act, passed, on the
I'd Feb. in the same year, the distribution
OF the suits, depending in the high court of
chancery, on the 1st day OF that month,
were TO be made in the following order,
! that Is to say, l. To the chancery court of
( that district, in which the defendant should
reside. should there be but one, but ifthere
were fTvo defendants, then to the chancerv
court OF that district, in which the one first
named III the plaintiffs bill should reside,
| ana II there were more than fzvo, then to
| me chancery Court of that district, IN which
the majority should reside, but if the num-
! ber' should be equal, i'll different districts,
| then to the court of that district, in which
the first named defendant in the Plaintiffs
bill should reside. 2. All injancffons de-
pending III the said high court of chancerv.
on the 1st Feb. 1902, should be sent 70 tie
! coHFf " that district, in which the jUdp-
} naeHt e1yolned 9yas rendered. 5. All in
J"Hcfton$ awarded by the Judge of the high
court OF chancery, previous to the 1st Feb.
! 1902, were to be issued by the clerk of that
court, IN like manner, rs if the act of the
Esd Jan. had not passed, 10 be ARRANGED
and allotted, as in the other cases of IN
functions. The clear and obvious intention
! OF the legislature, in branching the high
court OF chancery, was to afford IA more
| %eedy, as well as more coHvenieHt admi-
nistration OF justice to the people at large:
l. 1t would be more speedy, because hre,
courts would be acting instead of oyle:
| Ii would he
were to be held il. coups1He7t hLaces, as
signed to them, in their restrictive dis
! tT7ctS, and were to exercise the same iuris-
dlctlon and powers therein, as the hieh
court or ch2ncery OF She Judge thereof hos
seSSed, on the LIST Jan. 1902 What juzis
! dtcftoH and hozVers, did that court or the
Judge thereof Fo8StSS, on that dav? They
| were general over the whole commonwealth
on that day; but as Judge of the high court
OF chancery, nc possessed no Jurisdiction
| nor foToer, on the next day but as Judge
OF the superior court Of Chanccry, to be held
| In TINS place, Tor the district assigned To
HIM, he foSscsssd the like jurisdiction and
! power therein, which he had hossessed.
over the whole commonwealth, the dav be-
/ tore: Such is the force and power of the
law: BY the same force and power, a like
jurisdiction, was given to each of the other
superior courts, at &tauHfou and UfAiia15s
/ 6Hrg, v1hn their reyEc~,iUe districts
the three superior courts Cf chancery. then
! as established by law, .Ji.Lia their reshec-
me districts, were TO have Jurisdiction,
with single exception, as 70 residence.
in original suits, in case of plurality Of
defeGdants) as the nign court of chan
Gerry or the Judge thereof Possessed il.
ON the first of January, 1902; and do
they not still possess it 7uiihiu ibcir
! Te8fectiUe districts 2 they do Then as
the high court Of chancery or the Judge
thereof had the power of granting an in
Junction to q judgment, at law, within this
commonwealth, on the Ist Jan. 1902. the
same power belongs to and should be exer-
ciscd by, the superior courts Of chanccrv.
or the judges thereof respectively, zvilhi1
their resfeCtiue districts, nc this day for
there is nothing in the above recitcd act.
OF the 9th Jan. last, which affects the ju-
risGlctica Of any court, but only the crfr1t
OF the districts--in other words as the
county If 3ibemarle, by the act last mcnti-
onea, has been annexed to the Staunton
chancerY district, it must nor be consider
cd in the same situation, as if it had been
a county, enumerated among those comDo-
sing that district, by the act 2Sd Jan. 1902.
1t is not, as has been supposed, for this
court 70 enquire, 7vherc the defendant RE-
sides, because it is not one Of those cases.
| fhe iuviediCriOp ne yybicL ....-