Case Name: Blow, Administrator of Kello, v. Taylor and Another, Executors of Williams
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1809-10-07
Citations: 4 Hen. & M. 159
Docket Number: 
Parties: Blow, Administrator of Kello, v. Taylor and Another, Executors of Williams.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 844–844

Head Matter:
Blow, Administrator of Kello, v. Taylor and Another, Executors of Williams.
Saturday, October 7, 1809.
Injunctions — Dissolution—Effect of Dismission of Suit without Consent of Complainant, — On the dissolu- • tion of anin: unction, the complainant has a right to continue his cause as an original suit; therefore, if the Chancellor, without his consent, dismiss the bill at the same time that he dissolves the injunction, it is error.
The appellant obtained an injunction in the Superior Court of Chancery, for the Wil-liamsburg District, to stay proceedings on a judgment at law, rendered by the District Court of Suffolk. On the coming in of the answer, the Chancellor “being of opinion that the question was purely of a legal nature; that (contrary to the allegations of the plaintiff) a fair and full trial thereof had been had before a Court of Daw; that the plaintiS made no effort before that Court to obtain a new trial of the issue; and, therefore, that to interfere further in the case would be an assumption of power on the part of this Court, which would go to confound all distinction between Courts of Law and Courts of Equity, or rather to destroy *altogether the utility of Courts of Daw, by abolishing their decisions and taking up a fresh, without any new circumstance or colour of equity, cases peculiarly within the province of those Courts, and which they had previously, fairly, and solemnly decided,” (on the 6th of October, 1802,) dissolved the injunction, and, at the same time, . before any replication was filed by the complainant, dismissed the bill; declaring, that “the principle on which the dissolution took place, went to the entire extermination of the cause from that Court.” Erom which decree an appeal was taken to this Court.
After an argument on the merits, by George K. Taylor, for the appellant, he contended that, if all the other points should be against him, the decree must be reversed, because the Chancellor had dismissed the bill at the same time that he dissolved the injunction. A party may go into a Court of Chancery as a matter of right, and may ask an injunction, as a favour, from the Court. But after the injunction is dissolved, he has still a right to reply to the answer of the defendant, and continue his cause as an original suit, for a hearing in chief.
See m onographic note on “Injunctions” appended to Claytor v. Anthony, 15 Gratt. 518.

Opinion:
The whole Court (consisting of
JUDGES FLEMING, ROANE and TUCKER)
were clearly of opinion, that the complainant had a right to continue his cause, as an original suit, after the dissolution of the injunction ; and directed a decree to the following effect to be entered: "That there was no error in so much of the decree as dissolved the injunction ; but that the Court erred in dismissing the bill, which should have been retained for further proceedings, with leave to the parties to take depositions," &c. _