Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1845-07-02
Practice i'm Injunction Ca
SUPPLEMENTARY BRIEF.
SMITH VS.. HUNT.

SeS.
SUPPLEMENTARY BRIEF. 1I
f-s7 SMITH VS.. HUNT.
GAN the 26,h February, 1916, at Georgetown,'
" Mr.. B. r. Hunt presented a petition to
his Hon. Ch. David Johnson, (praynS an nrder
to the COMMISSIONER to sfgn Writ oi lnJunc'
ton, to the following effects. :.
The petition Of B. F. Hunt, Assignee OF
Charles T. Brown, shewetlr. That on "a Feb
mary, 1912, this Honorable Court granted an
Injunction against Peter Cutno and w. ;.
Sn,;,h administrators of Savage Smith, re-
straining them from proceeding atlaw on the
Bond of the Petitioner given to the Commis-
siouer of this Court, until the further order OF
the Court. A suit was then brought IN the
name of the Commissioner in Equity. tor the
time being Proceedings were accordingly
snspendei. Since then the said Cnttino and
Smith died, and William e.. Smith has admin
istered de bonus non, and now represents the
Estate of Savage Smith, and new suit has
been commenced in the name OF the present
Commissioner. so that the same suit in the
same ri sht has been again commenced andthe
order for an injunction stands unreversed.-
Wherefore, your Petitioner prays that the Com.
missioner be ordered to sign Writ OF lnjunc-
zion. pursuant to the original>0rder TO be d.
rected TO the present Commissioner. and the
present Administrator of Savage Snith, TO the
same effect as the original order
MESMiNGER s. JERvEY, Pro. Pet.
The order referred TO in The Petition was as
follows: =
tits ordered, that an Injunction issue accord
ing to the PRAYER of the Bill, aud that all pro.
ceediuo in the action now pending at Law. on
the bond OF the Complainant to Robert herlot,
Commissioner, at the suit of Peter Cuttlno and
w, S. Smith, or either Of them, be stayed 7till
the further order of this Court, with leave TO
tho Defendant to come in and file his answer,
and move to set aside the Injunction. n..s;.
Signed, HENRY w. DESSAUSSURE. =.
end February, 1882.
The application was resisted on tue part oi
VIM. c. Smith and others, on the ground that
the Injunction prayed for III effect, by the Re.
tition, was different from that ordered by Chan.
,cellor Dessaussure thirteen years ago-ahd that
after so great lapse Of time, and the filing oi
the answer, it should not now be granted with
out looking into the merits Of the case. This
the Chancellor refused to do, and, overrnling
the objection, granted the order in the follow
ing words:
"on motion of Mcmminger and Jervey, on
behalf of the Complaint ordered that the Order
Of Injunction formerly made against the for.
.ner administrator of Savage Smith, be.revived
against the present Administrator, and the
Commissioner do siSs the Wri. accordingly.
Signed, &c.
Itwas afterwards ascenained by the Com.
oFtoya rl, t,,tt t,ar
was no Injunction Bond to be found IN the OF
flee, if any had ever been given-and mo-
ton was made before his Honor, al Charles
lesion. that the order just before granted al
Georgetown should be amended, so asto re.
quire security from the Petitioner, in conformi
ity to the provisions Of the Statute. This was
refused, and his Honor's decision in the above
matter. is appealed from for Error
/. In reviving an Injunction formerly Or
dered, after so great length Of time, against
new parties. without considering the merits of
ihe 3. In mot moi ordering bond and security in con-
forr,ity to the provision Of the Statute, regula-
ting the granting of lnjuncons:
MITCHELL,
Solicitor of YIN. C. Smith and others,
I. C. T. Brown and wife, 1op1cI
vs. Adm'rs and Distributes ofG. Nal
Smith and al.
Q. 3. F. Hunt. Assignee !
w. s.'smlh and al
g. VIM c. smith aud
al VS.. }AND CROSS BILL.
3. F. Hunt.
1545, MARCH 3l-JoHSsoN. CH.
we do not perceive any cnnflict between the
decision of the Chancellor dislnissing the rule |
.,t,o., o,t IN co, ,e;de Tho nraer of rpforapce