Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1871-08-05

suing out She injunc Jon, and s.ipulating that
The DANA 1es may be 2 certained in such m nner
. the jCs.'ce shall direct; and that, on d,soly-
Ing he Injunction be may give Judgment thereon
a9eiD>s the principal and suresies for said dam
ases in the deciee isself dissolving the injunc-
ton.
! Mr.. Cock, continuing said Your Honor will
oil trye here are
Two RECEPTIONS
one when an tune, ion . 10 stay proceedings In
an ordipary suit at law, or against Judgment
deb,or. This tipg, - far as this court Is con-
ceTped, is res daJsdsc0sd. In the case of the
Board OF Public Works, at the last general
term, the question was raised by myself whether
a bopd was required. That question was taken
into considers alton by The entire court, except
your Honor, you then being in attendance on the
Circuit Court. In The morning the judges came
in and announced that his rule required in every
instance, except the two named,
AN INJUNCTION BOND
be ore an Injunction could be issued, and re-
quired the Board of Public Works to give their
bond in the sum OF 500 COO, which was DONE
Now, IL this rule is controlling, and this practice
enuncia.ed at the last ,erm of the Court in Gem
e. al Term Is to govern; the question 80 far the
siyirg of an injunc ION bond is concerned, is
seeded and determined. Nor is it neces-
airy, II your Honor please, as was
emount, because the very condition of the
bond is given here, and that is in these terms to
make good to the defendants all damages by
pequitable suing out of an injunction, and stip-
ulatirg that the damage may be ascertained In
such manner as the justice shall direct; and that
on dissolving the injunction he may give judg-
ment thereon against the principal and surety
for said damages on the decree Itself dssolving
The injunc.on; and TO sum is mentioned. In
The case of the Board OF Public-Works the mode
adopted of ascertaining was, as mentioned i'm the
bond, by reference to a jury. So that the ques-
lion suggested by your honor on yesterday, as to
what the damages would consist of. does not
required obligation, or undertaking, will be de-
te,m'ned in the event of the dissolution, in ac-
eordance with the principles of law. The ques-
ton for determination is the single one whether
Mr.. Durant remarked that the counsel yester-
day promised to furnish
OVERWHELMING AUTHORITIES
and an act of Congress relating to the M street
paving, and the decisions which he has quoted
are from the dieests of local statutes, and par
ticulaTly those in Pennsylvania. The act of
Congress simply hands over the work on NJ street
TO the Board of Public Works, which is to be
paid for by the citizens living on that street
The rule cited by the counsel as TO the practice
OIL 1hs court IL esseeGIngy am6g1oas Where
lor generally fixes the amount of bond, but only
in special cases. We believe no one of the de-
PENDANTS win suffer any damage in this case.
nor are they, enjoined from going on in the i'm
piovemeLts they propose to make under the law.
"JUDGEo DURANT. .e
When Mr.. Durant had concluded bis remarks
The Court said: i should Ike to be assisted
by counsel in the Interpretation of this rule of
tie court. 1 acknowledge L cannot under
stand Il.
Mr.. Cook.-May it please your Honor
The Court.-No. j want to-
Mr.. Cook.-Perhaps your Honor refers to
Judge Durant?
The COurt--Yee, sir.
Mr.. DTant.-DOn't call me Judge, if you
please.
Mr.. Co0k.-I had been In the habit of hearing
you so referred to, and 1 hoped you would
accept the dignity of the
Mr.. Durant-No, am wholly undeserving of
IL, and L don't like to assume TO myself titles
If in these cases no special provision existed in
law for requiring security, then the judge shall
not Issue an injunction without requiring Sc
rule because it accords with the general practice
OF ehancery in such cases. But IL you extend it
beyond that it does not apply.
AN ACT IN CONFLICT WITH THE RULE.
TIE Court-Here is provision OF the act of
Maryland OF I7Z3. 1t Is an act in force in this
District, and 1t appears to me 1t Is conflict with
that rule, If L have any comprehension OF the
rule. THE Court then read section OF the act
of September OF 1881 That provision relates to
saying the hands of a judgment creditor or ex-
ecu. ION creditor. who is proceeding to collect his
debt, and that Is the only case provided for by
tfe statute or Maryland
Mr.. Phillips.-1here is still another statute OF
on that subject.
The Court.-Yes, of 1893, but it is substantially
the same.
VIEWS OF MI. PHILLIPS.
Mr.. Phillir"-Yes, SIR. L will submit to your
Honor thai the intent on of the Court in adopt
ing this rule was II provide for cases other than
that inasmuch as il was known to the Court at
the me of the adoption of these rules that the
act Of Maryland required bond in cases of in
functions o stay proceeding at law; and mas
much as IL was known to the Court that the prac-
lice OF other States was required by statute
bonds in c.. es OF the ,ranting OF injrnctiOns TO
cover every possible injury that might arise in
rs rule was intended for hat purpose, to cover
0. her crses the CONT knowing that the case pro-
vided for injuries that mi hit be sustained of re-
ssrsininy suiss ut law, as already provided by
statute. ,Jrdre Fisher was unOn the bench at
The time OF the passage OF these rules, and he Is
able to state 20 your Honor that such was the in
ten probation held by the Court, or by the indi-
' dual members OF the court at the time of the
adopSlon of this rule. IL your Honor has any
doubt as - the cotemporancous understanding
o. individual judges at the time of the passage OF
there rules, should like your Honor to inquire
o" Judge +. If that was no. his understanding at
the ..me the rule was adopted.
The COurt--No, sir; that is not the way we
iaterprss rules of law, or our own rules. 1 was
a member of the court then, but believe the
rules we're adopted as q whole during my alb
without my examination-aDd
/ know nothing about the construction given to
this rule.
MI. Phillips.-That Is the greater reason why
your Honor should hear what was the under
sanding by individual judges who were pres
ent.
The Court win, OF course. avail myself of
all the intellectual lights within my reach.
Mr.. Phillips further explained the rule, when
THE COUET SAID:
My impression yesterday upon the subject
genei ally was that u was matter of discretion
with the court whether it would require security
or not, though i supposed that was the general
rue. 1t was alleged with great confidence by
counsel that the court had no discretion aboutit,
but must require a security in all cases in grant
ing an injunction.
Mr.. Cook.-If your Honor please, that was
NOT THE POSITION,
ss the notes of the sterogIaph wiz show. AL
low me to state my own position, which was this,
that the almost invariable practice was to ac-
company injlnct'o ns with bonds. That is the
pos...on assumed, or intended to assume.
The Court-If am not more mistaken than I
ever was ABOUT any thing depending on thing
10 frail as human memory, you Stated to the
court that the authorities were overwhelming
and conclusive, and pledged yourself II produce
them in count this morning, and the court, in
reply, said it would give you until this morning
TO do 80.
Mr. Cook.-I came prepared to sustain my po-
sitiOn, and think have fully done 80.
The Court.-Mr. Cook, 1 am announcing my
decision.
Mr.. Cook.-well, / CANNOT
The Court will not be interruptedar more.
Mr.. Cook.-I do not desire to be misrepre sent
ed, and l.
Mr.. COOK FINED 800.
The Court-The Court viii fine You 800, sir,
for your insolepce. Ito The stenoorapher.)-
Take dowL IL language, that he saiG he did not
desire % be misrepresented, In answer 10 the