Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1845-06-25
Practice i'm Injunction Ca
SUPPLEM EEr.iRY BRIEF.
SMITH vs.. HUNT

SUPPLEMENTARY BRIEF.
SMITH vs.. HUNT
nm the 26th February, ls45. at Genrgelow
" Mr.. B. f. Hunt presented p:tition tc
tlu lion. Ch. David Johnson, (prayng All r!el
To the Commissioner to sign Nnl vi njunc
:iion, 10 the following effect:
! The petition Of B. r. Hunt Assignee Of
Charles r. Brown, shewelh. That on I'd Feb
rn;,ry, 1872 this Honorable Court granted dr
Injunction against Peter Cn,lino and W. s.
Smith. administrators of Savage Smith, re.
sstrul,ling them from proceeding at law on the
sBund of The Petitioner given TO the Commits
/ ssioner of this Court, until the further order Of
sthe Court. A suit was then brought in the
sname Of The Commissioner in Equity, for the
Slime being Proceedings were accordingly
suspended. Since then the said .C1tIlnn and
aSmith died, and William T.. Smith has admin
s,slered de bonus non and now represents the
Estate Of Savage smith, aud new suit has
sbcen commenced in the name OF the present
commissioner, so that the same suit in the
ssame ~ Sht has been again commenced. and the
! jurder for AN injunction stands unreversed.-
" therefore, your Petitioner prays ihatthe Com.
missioner be ordered TO sign Writ OF lnjunc.
sliun pursuant to the original order, 10 he di.
4 3rrctet to The present Commissioner and the
present. Administrator OF Savage Smith, to the
same effect as thu original order.
Signed,
MEM llNGER d. JERVE.Y, Pro. Pet.
The order referred to in the Petition was as
follows:
Itis ordered, that an Injunction issue accord
ing To the PRAYER of the Bill and that all pro
sceedin.s in the action now pending at Law, on
the bond OF the Complainant to Robert Heriot
sCommlssIoner, at the suit of Peter Cuttino and
W. s. Smith, or either of them, be stayed I'LL
the further order Of this Court, with leave ia
sthc Defendant to come in and file his answer
5and move to set aside The injunction.
Signed, HENRY W. DESSAUSSURE.
Find February, 1882.
The application was resisted on the part al
" nj. T.. Smith others, on the ground lha
atne Injunction prayed for, in effect, by tie p.
slilion, was different from that ordered by Chan
scellor Dessaussure thirteen years ago-and tina
iter so great lapse Of time. AMI the filing OF
she answer, il should hot now be granted with
soul looking into the merits Of the case. This
itIe Chancellor refused to do, and, Sverruliug
Sthe objection, granted the order in the follow,
aing words:
"On motion of Mcmrninger and Jervey, or
abchalf of the Complaint, ordered that thc Order
sul Injunction formerly made against the for
liner Administrator Of Savage Smith, be- csrevived
against the present Administrator, aud The
Commissioner do sign the Writ accordingly
Signed, &c.
II
1t was afterwards ascertaned by the Com
2missioner, by certificate after search that there
I " as no Injunction Bond to be found in the of
a6ce, if any had ever been given-aud mD
ation was made before his Honor, at Charles
9leston, that the order just before granted u
J aGeorgetuwn should be amended, so as 10 re-
5quire security from the Petitioner, in conrormi
aiy to the provisions of the Statute. This wa,
refused, and his Honor's decision in the above
matter, is appealed from for Error
l. In reviving an Injunction formerly or
5dercd, after so great a length Of time. agdins
! new parties. without considering the merits Of
4 su.e Petitioners . case.
2. In notordrring bond and security in con
5t"rmity lothe provision of the Stulule, regua
5lius The granting Of lnjunclions.
MITCHELL,
Solicitor Of Tin. e. Smith and others
|. c. II. Brown and wife, op1c,
IS. Adn''rs; and Distributes ofG. NAL NAL
Smith and al.
a.. Is. +. Hunt, Assignee, !
vs. SUPPLEMENTAL
w. S.Smilh and al
s3. VIM. e. Smith aud
al vs. }AND CROSS BILL
B. F. Hunt
1915, MARCH 3l-JouNsoS. CH.
We do notperceve any cnmflict between tht
Sdrcision of the Chancellor d,Smlssing the rnlt
! taken out TO set aside the order Of reference
aud, the order subsequently made to arrest ihs
preference tor the purpose of making other ne
Scessary parties
The rule proceeded upon an allegation ,ha
athe order OF reference had been irr"guIary oh
dlaincd. aud was discharged because that did no
aappear tn have been the casr.
The subsequent order proceeded upnn the
Srfnciple that. even where an order Of refer
5ence has been regularly made If at any stage
Ao!lhe cause il appears that tie accounts can
an"t be Prol erly taken without additional par
aIres, il is the duty of the Cont 10 stay proceed
gimgs until they be brought in.
4 ltwOu Z have been mnre regular. in such case
Ito have merely suspended, instead of recalling
! aIie order Of reference; and l. is now ordered
! that the decree be so modified. although tin
expressed, that the recalling o
Glue old, + would ha suppressed the evidence
stakrn under it. dny more than the evidence
Atahen IN any former sIuge of the case, wuuI'
2seeIn 10 be uniOunded.
A We cuncur in The propric,y Of the decree re
3qulring the additional parties. aud deem it um
anecessary to add TO the observations of tht
aChancrlIor on that subject.
s II. as is gected aud as appears very "b
sscnrely by the pleadings, Henry Cut,no is th'
3Admor of Peter CIlltino. and VIM e. Smith
sthe Admor. de bonus non of Savage Smith
slhese being parties TO the suit, so much Of lht
decree is complied with. but the other partie:
5Iequired by the decree must nevertheless bt
Smade.
On the subjebt Of the injunction, we diffe
5from our brother Johnson.
The Statuary Law. applicable to this point
Sis contained in the acts of 1921. 1874 aud 1884
9(7 Coopcr's Statutes l6l 35, IL @l5, anu ~!
a@9.)
] The first ofthesc acts, after prescribing th'