Case Name: Clarke v. Hoomes's Executors and Others
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1808-06-27
Citations: 2 Hen. & M. 23
Docket Number: 
Parties: Clarke v. Hoomes’s Executors and Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 319–320

Head Matter:
Clarke v. Hoomes’s Executors and Others.
Monday, June 27, 1808.
Injunctions — Against Judgments — Effect upon Proceeding before Bond Given. — An order from the Chancellor granting an injunction to a judgment at common law upon the usual terms, is not sufficient to stay the proceedings until the complainant has complied with the terms of the order by giving bond and security.
Same — Same—Same—Contempt. —In such case, it is no contempt of the Court of Chancery for the plaintiff or the sheriff to proceed to sell under the execution, notwithstanding the Chancellor’s order was shewn them.
On the 29th of May last, the plaintiff obtained from the Judge of .this court, who was then in the county of Powhatan, an injunction, upon the usual terms, to inhibit the defendants from selling, under an execution of Hoomes’s executors against Joham Randolph, a negro man claimed by the plaintiff. On the 30th of the same month, the order made by the judge was shewn to the defendants at the sale at Powhatan Courthouse, and they were forewarned from selling the said negro. The plaintiff then proceeded to the city of Richmond with all possible dispatch, and, upon complying with the conditions of the order, obtained from the clerk the subpoena and injunction : but, when he returned to the county of Pow hatan the sale had been made, and the agent of Hoomes’s executors had bought and carried *off the negro. At an early day in this term, the plaintiff moved and obtained a rule, returnable on Saturday the 25th instant, upon the deputy sheritf of Powhatan, and the agent for Hoomes’s executors, to shew cause why they should not be attached for their contempt in disobeying the order of the Judge. They accordingly appeared, and shewed cause.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The order in this case, which it is said has been disobeyed, was a conditional one : and before it could have any obligatory force, it was the duty of the plaintiff to comply with the conditions. This had not been done when it was presented to the defendants, although the plaintiff knew of the sale time enough to have made his application for his injunction, to have complied with the conditions usual in such cases, and to have been at the sale, if he had been so disposed ; and therefore he should not complain that, for the want of time, his property was sold. Again, the sheriff was acting under the process of a court of law, and was bound to obey its commands, unless, agreeable to law, he was inhibited. But if the court thought the defendants erred is not observing the order of the Judge, yet, under the present circumstances, he would not think them guilty of a contempt to the authority of the law confided to his hands, because it clearly appears from the testimony, that they considered the order as unavailing, unless complied with, in the first instance, by the plaintiff, and, for that reason, went on to obey the precept of the common law court: for this court is perfectly satisfied, from what appears, that, had the injunction been presented in the usual manner, it would have been obeyed. It would then very little comport with the character of a court of equity, to attach a man for doing wrong, when he intended to do right. It is the intention that, in all cases, should constitute the offence ; and no man should for a moment be deprived of his liberty, who does not intend a violation of the law.
Rule discharged at the costs of the plaintiff.