Case Name: Fox and Vowles v. Mountjoy Executor of Edwards
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1817-12
Citations: 6 Munf. 36
Docket Number: 
Parties: Fox and Vowles v. Mountjoy Executor of Edwards.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 613–614

Head Matter:
Fox and Vowles v. Mountjoy Executor of Edwards.
Decided, Dec. 1817.
i. Injunction Bond — Action on — Verdict.—In an action upon a Bond for prosecuting'an Injunction to stay proceedings on a Judgment at law, for a debt bearing interest; which injunction is dissolved & the bill dismissed; the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict for the amount of the principal sum with lawful interest to the time of finding such verdict, the costs at law and in Chancery, (costs being awarded to the plaintiff by the decree,) with damages on the said principal sum at the rate of ten per cen-tum per annum, during the pendency of the injunction; although the condition of the bond be, for payment of the “judgment, and costs of the injunction (if ruled tobe paid “by the complainant,”) — without mentioning interest or damages.
Injunction Bond — Statute Not Strictly Foiiowed— Bifect. — Although the condition of an injunction bond is not so extensive as the statute requires, yet if it contains a material part ol the conditions required, the bond is not void, but binds the obligors lo the extent of such condition or conditions, and when the bond contains some conditions or provisions not required by the statute and some of those which are required, it is valid and binding to the extent of the latter. Holliday v. Myers, 11 W. Va. 294, citing principal case. To the same effect, the principal case is cited in State v. Purcell, 31 W. Va. (56, 5 S. K. Rep. 313. See further, monographic note on “Injunctions” appended to Claytor v. Anthony, 15 Gratt. 518; monographic note on “Statutory Bonds” appended to Goolsby v. Strother. 21 Graft. 107. The principal case is cited in Jeter v. Danghorne, 5, Gratt. 200; Claytor v. Anthony, 15 Gratt. 525.

Opinion:
The Condition of an Injunction Bond was, "that, whereas the above bound Nathaniel Fox hath obtained an injunction in the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, to stay proceedings on a judgment at law lately obtained in the County Court of Stafford against him by the said Thomas Mountjoy Executor as aforesaid, now, if the above bound Nathaniel Fox shall well and truly pay and satisfy the judgment obtained against him at common law, by the aforesaid Thomas Mountjoy as Executor aforesaid, in case the injunction upon hearing should be dissolved, ^together with the costs of said injunction, if ruled so to do, then the above obligation to be void, else to remain in full force and virtue."
Action being brought on this bond, in the County Court of Stafford, issue was joined on the plea of condition performed. At the trial, the plaintiff gave in evidence the bond, and a copy of the record of proceedings in Chancery shewing that, in fact, the Injunction was dissolved, and the bill dismissed, with costs : — whereupon, the defendants moved the Court to instruct the Jury that the plaintiff was not entitled, in this action, and under the condition of this bond, to damages at the rate of ten per centum, and other interest and Costs not contained in the terms of the said obligation ; which the Court refused to do, and instructed the Jury "that the plaintiff was. entitled to recover interest on the principal, {exclusive of costs of judgment enjoined,) at the rate of six per centum per annum from the rendition of said judgment until the said injunction was awarded, and from the dissolution of said injunction until the present time, and also damages, at the rate of ten per centum per annum, on the said principal sum during the existence of the said injunction, and also the plaintiff's costs in the Court of Chancery:" —to which opinion the defendants excepted.
Verdict and Judgment accordingly for the plaintiff. — Upon an appeal, the Judgment was affirmed by the Superior Court; and thereupon, the defendants again appealed.
After argument by Briggs for the appellants, and Green for the appellee, this Court also affirmed the Judgment.
Note. The judgment was for a debt bearing interest. — Note in Original Edition.
Note. See R. Code of 1819, c. 66, § 61, p. 209.