Inhabitants. [D] (B) What they may do or claim as fuch, and how. 14 Vin. 420. I. A Custom for all the inhabitants of a parifh to play at all kinds of lawful games, fports, and paftimes in the clofe of A., at all feasonable times of the year, at their free will and pleafure, is good. Titch v. Rawlins, 2 Hen. Blac. 393. 2. The like custom for all perfons for the time being, being in the faid parish, is bad. Ib. indictments, 3. Action on the cafe against the men dwelling in the county of Devon, for an injury done to plaintiff's waggon, in confequence of a bridge being out of repair, which ought to have been re- It is otherpaired by the county. To which two of the inhabitants appeared wife as to for themselves and the rest of the men dwelling in the county, but this is and demurred, Held that the action did not lie; for they are fanctioned neither a corporation, nor qua a corporation, nor have any corpo- by unbroken rate fund out of which fatisfaction can be made. Ruffell v. The Ld Kenyon Men of Devon. 2 Term Rep. 667. 4. No action would have lain against the hundred for not keeping watch and ward before the ftatute of hue and cry, which gives it; they not being a corporation. Semb. Jackson v. Inha, bitants of Carlesworth, 1 Term Rep. 72. See alfo 2 Will. 92. 5. A plaintiff recovering damages against the hundred, under 9 G. 1. c. 22., is entitled to his cofts. 16. See ante, 3 Suppl. tit. Custom (A), 66. (H), ib. 69. pl. 7. (I), ib. 70. pl. 3. And poft. tit. Prefeription. ufage Per C. J. Ib. Injunction. (A) Grantable; in what Cafes to ftop Proceedings. 14Vin.422. I. AFTER a verdict at law, upon a bond of 20 years standing, an injunction was granted. 3 P. Wms. 395. Mich. 1735. Humphreys v. Humphreys. 2. A bill to ftay defendants, who had an intereft in the manor of Tunbridge, from proceeding at law against the plaintiffs, for H 3 building building houses on the manor without leave, and praying that de fendants might accept of fuch a compenfation as the court fhould think reasonable; the court refused to continue the common injunction till the hearing. 1 Atk. 285. Mich. 1738. Conyers v. Lord Abergavenny. In the above cafe, a bill brought by the defendants had been difmiffed, on a fuggeftion of the plaintiffs, that it was matter determinable at law. 3. Whilt fuits were depending here, the plaintiffs indicted the defendant's agents at the feffions, where they themselves were judges, for a breach of the peace. The plaintiffs were ordered not tq proceed at the feffions till anfwer or further order. And it was faid by the Chancellor Hardwicke, that there was no reftraining power in this court over criminal profecutions, but that where an action of trefpafs will lie, the Attorney-General would grant a noli profequi to a criminal profecution, and that pendente lite this court would jeop an action of trespass vi et armis, or an indictment for a forcible entry, pending a fuit here for the quieting the poffeffion. 2 htk. 302. May 1742. Mayor of York v. Pilkington. 4. Where bond creditors of the ancestor proceed at law against the heir, and others bring a bill in equity on behalf of themselves and the other creditors, and obtain a decree, an injunction fhall ifue against thofe fuing at law, unless they have first obtained judgment. Vef. 211. Hill. 1743. Martin v. Martin. 5. An injunction was granted to ftay trial in actions at law commenced by a corporation for petty cuftoms, till answer, as a defence at law might arife out of the answer. 2 Vef. 620. Trin. 1755. Anon. 6. An injunction, obtained to stay proceedings at law against the principal, was extended to stay proceedings on the bail bond. Amb. 32. December 1744. Stone v. Tuffin. 7. An injunction was awarded to fly proceedings at law for an annnity, on paying all the arrears into court. Amb. 242. Hill. 1754. Searle v. Lord Carpenter. 8. Leffee of a houfe covenants to repair, with exception as to fire; the houfe is burnt; the leffee, having infured and received the infurance money, neglects to rebuild, and brought an action for rent, and was reftrained from proceeding. Amb. 619. Trin. 1764. Brown v. Quilter. 9. A bond was given for the enjoyment of a collateral matter, an injunction issued against an action commenced upon the bond for the penalty, and an iffue of quantum damnificatus was granted, that the actual damage incurred only might be paid. 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 418. Mich. 1784. Sloman v. Waiter. 10. Injunction granted to restrain defendant from recovering a demand from one of the plaintiffs, he having reprefented, on a treaty of marriage with his daughter, that there was no fuch demand existing. 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 543. 1782. Nevile v. Wilkinfon. 11. The 11. The eftates of loyalists in America were, under the forfeiting acts, confifcated and vested in the states, and to be fold for the payment of the debts of fuch loyalifts convicted as therein mentioned. This is no ground for an injunction to stay an action here upon a bond given by fuch loyalist before he was convicted. 2 Bro. 11. Mich. 1785. Kempe v. Antill. 12. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the juftices of the peace of the county of Northumberland, at the quarter feffions, to build a bridge. The fum agreed for was paid, and the plaintiff entered into a bond for the performance of the article: the bridge was built, and deftroyed by a flood; and the plaintiff refusing to rebuild, having been advifed by able engineers that no bridge. could be built upon the feite, which could ftand, an action was brought against him upon the bond; and an injunction was awarded, and an issue quantum damnificatus ordered, the fum mentioned in the bond being a penalty. 2 Bro. Ch. Rep. 341. Trin. 1783. Errington v. Aynefley. 13. There being a decree for payment of debts, &c. on the fuit of the trustees, though the parties had not proceeded under that decree, a creditor was reftrained from proceeding at law against the executor. 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 183, 1782. Brooks v, Reyn bolds. 14. Representatives of mortgagee, after foreclosure, fell the mortgaged premifes; and the amount not being fufficient to pay the debt, bring an action on the bond, injunction to reftrain their proceeding refufed. 2 Bro. Ch. Rep. 125, Tooke v. Hartley. 15. Where the defendant is abroad, a motion for an injunction to ftay proceedings at law must be on special ground. 2 Bro. Ch. Rep. 640. 1789. Revet v. Braham. 16. Where the plaintiff at law is abroad, and an injunction bill filed, and motion that fervice of the fubpoena upon the attorney at law fhould be good fervice, an affidavit of the truth of the equity of the bill muft accompany the motion for a fubpera. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 12. 1789. Delancey v. Wallis. See alfo 3. Bro. 23. Burke v. Vickars, S. P. 17. Where there is a bill filed against an executor, and a decree quod computet, and that creditors fhall come in; if a creditor brings an action, an injunction shall iffue to ftay trial, as well as execution; but if the action be brought before the bill filed, and he chooses to discontinue, he shall be allowed to prove his colts at law in addition to his debt. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 23. 1789. Goate v. Fryer. 18. Upon an interpleading bill, it was doubted whether the money ought not to be actually brought into court before the motion for an injunction, though the practice feems to have been, that it has been held time enough, if brought in upon fhewing caufe against diffolving the injunction. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 36. 1789. Dungey v. Angove and others. 19. Action at law on a bond given to a trustee, only reciting that the obligor was (on the refignation of obligec's ceftuique truft) appointed H 4 appointed to an office, not reftrained by injunction; but may be pleaded at law, in order to try whether the confideration was corrupt. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 57. 1790. Thrale v. Moss. 20. The practice of a court of law, compelling a plaintiff on a bond not to take execution beyond his real debt, does not ouft a court of equity of its jurifdiction in awarding an injunction, 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 73. 1790. Codd v. Woden. 21. An injunction to stay execution and trial, not granted as one motion. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 87. 1790. Wright v. Braine. 22. Affidavits read upon an application for an injunction to reftrain execution on a verdict at law, after anfwer put in. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 463. 1792. Jaacs v. Humpage. See Bunb. 30. Walter v. Ruffel. 23. Where a bill has been filed for an account, and a creditor comes in before a Master, but afterwards brings an action, a court of equity will enjoin; but where the defendant has not applied in the firft inftance, it fhall be without cofts. 4 Bro. Ch. Rep. 163. Hil. 1793. Hardcafle v. Chettle. 24. An injunction extends to prevent a fuit against the fheriff, for not paying over money levied by him in the original action before the injunction iffued. 2 Anftr. 556. Eaft. 35 G. 3. Bolt v. Stanway. But, in order to bring himfelf within the protection of the order, the fheriff must comply with the terms of it, by bringing the money into court. Ibid. 569. 25. An injunction cannot be party to the fuit. 2 Anfr. 521. ceps. Gadd v. Wooval. Ibid. 555. 26. Where one deftrained, and on replevin made three conufances as bailiff to different perfons, an affidavit, ftating the only claim to be under one of the perfons, and that he had abfconded infolvent, will not entitle the plaintiff to an injunction. 3 Anfr. 636. Mich. 36 G. 3. Nicholls v. Phillips and others. extended to reach a perfon not a Hil. 35 G. 3. Dawson v. PrinS. P. 27. On a motion for an injunction, the plaintiff cannot read affidavits to contradict the answer. 3 Anftr. 658. Hil. 36 G. 3. Sommervile v. Buckle. 28. A. fued at law on a policy of infurance, which he had made as agent for B., on a motion for an injunction on affidavit of B.'s refiding abroad, A. muit have notice. 3 Anftr. 686. Hil. 36 G. 3. Beachcroft v. Gordon and others. 14 Vin. 425 (A. 2) Grantable, in what Cafes, to flop Execution, or to flay Wafte. UPON PON a contract to affign to Smith 300l, the third fubfcription in the S. Sen, on the 28th of August, Smith covenanted upon affigning to pay 1050l., for which he gave a bond, and judgment was obtained thereupon in the common pleas; Smith filed a bill for an injunction, and obtained it, because the money for which the bond was given was the confideration of the contract; ; contract; and this being a mutual agreement, they ought not to be put to cross actions at law. Bunb. 75. 1721. Smith v. Nottingham. Vide Bunb. 84. Aubrey v. Fitzhught, as to S. Sea Contracts. 2. Where the crown has only a bare refervation of royal mines, it cannot grant a licence to any person to come upon another man's eftate to fearch for mines; but when mines are open, the crown can restrain the owner of the foil from working them, and can either work the mines itself, or grant a licence to others to work them. 2 Atk. 19. 2 Atk. 19. Jan. 1739. Lyddal v. Weflon. 3. If a man fuffer another to build upon his land, without fetting up a title till afterwards, the court of chancery will oblige the owner to permit him to enjoy it quietly. 2 Atk. 83. Nov. 1740. Eaft India Company v. Vincent. 4. A rector may cut down timber for the repairs of the parfonage houfe or chancel, but not for any common purpofe. He is allo entitled to botes for repairing barns and outhoufes belonging to the parfonage; and an injunction iffued to restrain the rector from cutting down timber in the church-yard till the hearing, except for thofe purposes. 2 Atk. 217. Nov. 1741. Strachy v. Francis. 5. The court will not grant an injunction to restrain a person from committing a trespass, where it is temporary only; otherwife if it has continued fo long as to become a nuisance. 3 Atk. 21. Jan. 1743. Coulson v. White. 6. Limitation to A. for life, to trustees to preferve contingent remainders, &c. to the firft, &c. fons of A. in tail; remainder to B. for life, remainder to his firft, &c. fons in tail. Reverfion in fee to A., who cuts down timber, against whom B. brought his bill to ftay wafte. Though B. has no right to the timber, yet as he has an intereft in the mast and shade, if A. fhould die without fons; and as R. could not maintain an action, not having the immediate remainder, the injunction was continued. 3 Atk. 94. June 1744 Perrot v. Perrot. 7. A bill in this court to reftrain nuisances extends only to fuch as are nuisances at law and the fears of mankind, though reasonable, will not create a nuifance; and a motion for an injunction to restrain the building the fmall-pox hofpital was refufed. 3 Atk. 756. Dec. 1752. Anon. Baines v. Baker, Amb. 158. S. C. * 8. Injunction on a forcible entry granted against the commiffioners of the turnpike for digging gravel in land leafed to the plaintiff for 21 years, and converted into a garden, 1 Vef. 188. Dec. 1748. Hughes v. Truflees of Morden College. 9. Jointrefs gives leave to the next in remainder for life without impeachment of wafte, to cut timber on the jointure eftate; he dying without iffue, the remainder-man over in tail having acquiefced in, and encouraged the fo doing, fhall be restrained from bringing an action of waste against the jointress. 1 Vef. 396. Feb. 1749-50. Afton v. Afton. 10. If a fole right to a ferry appear upon record, the court will grant an injunction before anfwer, to restrain others from ufing the ferry-boats there; but there must be full affidavits to fhew that the |