4. Notice of filing exceptions must be two days before you can move for an injunction. Bunb. 116. 1722. Lord Carlisle v. Wymondfel and others.

5. Upon an order for time, the plaintiffs immediately moved according to the prayer of the information, which was to enjoin defendants from mifapplying money, which was received for the benefit of a corporation, and this, though fevere, was granted. Bunb. 258. Attorney-General v. Norris.

6. Defendant was outlawed; plaintiff obtained a leafe from the crown, and moved for an injunction to put him in poffeffion, which was refused. Bunb. 261. 1728. Tiffin v. Fackfon.

7. It was moved that an injunction on an attachment thould extend to stay defendants receiving S. Sea annuities, which was granted, being according to the prayer of the bill, and the anfwer not being come in. Bunb. 289. 1730. Terry v. Harrison.

8. A wife, executrix, was reftrained from getting in the affets of her teftator, her husband being in the Weft Indies, and out of the jurifdiction of the court. 2 Atk. 213. Oct. 1741. Taylor

v. Allen.

9. B. (the plaintiff) was refiduary legatee and furviving executrix of her husband, to whom C. and O. had given a joint bond. C. died, and the plaintiff was indebted, on her own private account, to O., who is a bankrupt. The bill was brought against his affignees for an injunction, and to fet off what was due to her as executrix against the debt due from her to the bankrupt; but the injunction was refufed, the debts being due in different rights, and are not comprehended in the ftat. 2 G. 2. 3 Atk. 691. Dec. 1748. Bishop v. Church.

10. The defendant was in this cafe reftrained from negociat. ing a promiffory note, given on a marriage brokage agreement, till anfwer or further order. Amb. 66. Oct. 1747. Sir Edward Smith v. Haytwell.

II. As to the iffuing of commiffions to examine witneffes abroad, and the granting injunctions in the mean time, see Bro. Par. Caf. 7 vol. 192. Cojamaul and others v. Verelft; and 245, Nicol v. Verelt. 1774.

12. Injunction against a purchafer on behalf of a creditor, to reftrain payment of the purchase-money to the heir. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 217. Hil. 1791. Green v. Jones.

13. An injunction is granted on amended bill on fpecial motion, without affidavit, after injunction diffolved on the original bill. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 425. 1792. Edwards v. Jenkins.

14. Injunction to reftrain defendant from negociating a bill of exchange, given for goods not delivered. iffued on certificate of bill filed and affidavit. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 476. March 1792. Patrick v. Harrison.

15. Motion granted for an injunction and receiver, for one partner against another, the defendant being in contempt, and being ferved perfonally, and not appearing. 4 Bro. Ch. Rep. 441. 1793. Mead v. Bowers.

16. Injunction

14 Vin. 428.

io. Injunction granted againft fecurities obtained by one French emigrant against another by arrefting him; he was about to fail on an expedition against France, and under an obligation entered into in France as furety, which, according to the laws of France, could not affect the perfon. 3 Vefjun. 447. June 1797Talleyrand v. Boulanger.

17. Injunction to restrain a breach of covenant, fecured by forfeiture of leafe and a penalty. 5 Vef. jun. 555. Aug. 1800. Barret v. Blagrave.

18. After an injunction diffolved on the merits, the plaintiff cannot, on an amended bill, have another injunction, without a fpecial affidavit of merits, though the defendant be in contempt for not answering. 1 Anftr. 188. Eaft. 33 G. 3. Lingham v. Toule.

I.

(A. 5) At what Time it may be granted.

AFTER a plea put in, there can be no motion for an injunction till the plea is argued. 3 P. Wms. 396. Mich. 1733Humphreys v. Humphreys.

2. A plea mult first be removed out of the way, before the plaintiff can have an injunction to stay proceedings at law. 2 Atk. 113. Jan. 1740. Anon.

14 Vin. 429. (B) How, and on what Suggestions and Terms granted or obtained.

1. INJUNCTION granted on behalf of a patentee of a new invention, after the anfwer came in, on affidavit of the prejudice which would arife from diffolving it. 3 P. Wms. 255. Eaft. 1734. Gibbs v. Cole.

2. After a writ of execution of a decree, and an attachment ferved on the defendant, the plaintiff may have an injunction to the defendant to deliver poffeffion, and next a writ of affiftance, commanding him to be aiding in putting the defendant into poffeilion. 3 Atk. 275. Nov. 1744. Stribley v. Hawkie. See alfo 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 376.

3. A plaintiff, where an injunction has been diffolved on the merits or for want of fhewing caufe, cannot, by amending his bill and defendants obtaining a dedimus to take his anfwer, move for an injunction, but on the coming in of the answer, he may move for an injunction on the merits. 3 Atk. 694. May 1749. Anon.

4. A proper writ of injunction cannot be granted unless prayed by the bill. Amb. 70. January 1749. Javory v. Dyer.

5. Injunction diffolved on the merits; plaintiff amends his bill, or brings a fupplemental bill for the fame matter; he cannot have an injunction till anfwer. Amb. 104. October 1750. Travers v. Lord Stafford. 2 Vef. 19. S. C.

6. Where a bill is referred for impertinence before the time for anfwering is out, the plaintiff cannot have an injunction of course,

for

1

for want of an answer; but must move it on notice and affidavit. 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 574. June 1784. Neale v. Wadefon.

7. Motion for an injunction to restrain Lord Byron from preventing the water flowing to plaintiff's mill in fuch regular quantities as it had ordinarily done the 4th of April 1785. The motion was before appearance, and upon affidavits ftating Lord Byron's object, from expreffions, to exact money from the plaintiff, the motion was granted; but afterwards, upon motion to diffolve the injunction, upon coming,in cf the anfwer, the Mafter of the Rolls refused to let the affidavits be read. I Bro. Ch. Rep. 589. May 1785. Robinson v. Lord Byron. See 2 Bro. 90. Strathmore v. Bowes.

8. Injunction granted in preffing cafes, on petition and affidavit. In the particular cafe, on converting old houfes in London to a purpofe dangerous to the public, the Lord Chancellor granted the injunction. 5 Vef. jun. 129. Mayor of London v. Bolt.

9. On a bill for difcovery and injunction, the defendant (plaintiff at law) admitted himself to be a mere agent for the other defendant, and ignorant of the tranfaction; an injunction was moved for as of course, till the coming in of the anfwer of the other defendants, who lived abroad; but there appearing a danger of lofing other material evidence by the delay, it was refufed. 2 Anfir. 502. Mich. 35 G. 3. Vandam v. Munro.

10. On a truft to fell, a fuggeftion in the bill of improper conduct of the trustees, in not giving fufficient notice of the fale, is not a ground for an injunction to ftop the intended fale. 2 Anflr. 549. Eaft. 35 G. 3. Sir John Pechel, Bart. v. Fowler and

others.

I.

(C) To what Court or Place, &c. Injunction lies. 14 Vin. 431.

A N injunction was granted to stay proceedings in the Bishop of Ely's court, until anfwer, where the defendant, as rector of Gambigla in Cambridgeshire, libelled against the plaintiffs, his parishioners, for tithes; and upon alleging feveral modufes, the proof of which arofe out of the anfwer, the motion was granted. Bunb. 27. 1718. Abthorp and others v. Jennings.

2. An injunction was alfo granted to ftay proceedings in the foiritual court in Yorkshire. Attorney-General v. Starkey. 1722. In notis. Sec alfo Sir Edward Blacket v. Dr. Finney, Bunb. 176. 1724. And Salmon and others v. Rake. 1733. In notis.

3. Where there is a truft, or any thing in the nature of a trust, notwithstanding the ecclefiaftical court hath an original jurifdiction in legacies, yet equity will grant an injunction. And where the hufband of an infant inftitutes a fuit in the ecclefiaftical court for her legacy, upon the executors filing a bill, and fuggefting this matter to the court, an injunction would be continued to the hearing. Atk. 491. Feb. 1738. Anon.

VOL. V.

I

4. An

#4 Vin. 431.

4. An injunction does not deny, but admits the jurifdiction of the court of common law; the ground on which it iffues is, that the court of law exercifes a jurifdiction contrary to equity: as where a trustee is fuing in the ecclefiaftical court for payment of cefiui que truft's legacy, or where a husband is fuing for a portion. before fettlement made. 1 Alk. 516. December 1737. Hill v. Turner.

5. A legacy of 800l. devised to E. B., payable at 21 or marriage, charged on a fund partly real and partly perfonal; he died before 21 unmarried: as affets avere admitted, the court would not grant an injunction to lay proceedings in the ecclefiaftical court for the recovery of the legacy. 3 Atk. 203. December 1744• Baffet v. Baffet.

6. The owners of two privateers feized upon the fhip Diligence as lawful prize, it appearing by the captain's papers that she had carried provifions to the enemy; and the captain figned a note, by which he acknowledged that they had very juftly confifcated the cargo. The captain of the Diligence Erings a bill in chancery for an injunction to the court of admiralty to flay a fuit pending there on the lawfulness of the tranfaction, fuggefting that fome of the papers are loft, and that, if the note, which he was obliged to give, should be produced, he must be caft at law. The injunction was refufed; for if it were to be granted upon fuch pretences, it would defeat the act of parliament relating to prizes; and if the figning of the note were owing to durefs, the court of admiralty could fupprefs it. 3 Atk. 350. June 1746. Anon.

7. A fuit in the ecclefiaftical court for fubtraction of tithes; the defendant there brings a bill to establish a modus, aud on the bare fuggeftion of a modus brings a bill for an injunction to stay proceedings in the ecclefiaftical court; but the injunction was denied. 3 Atk. 628. March 1748. Rotherham v. Fanshaw.

8. Where a fuit is inftituted in the fpiritual court for an infant's legacy, by a father, to have it paid into his hands, the court of chancery granted an injunction. Ibid. 69.

(D) Perpetual Injunctions. In what Cafes.

1. PERPETUAL injunction after five ejectments and two bills in equity. Bunb. 158. 1723. Barefoot v. Tay.

2. Bill for a perpetual injunction to ftay proceedings in the prerogative court, by the Duchefs of Buckinghamshire, for controvert ing the will of the Duke of Buckinghamshire, which had been proved in this court, and admitted by the duchefs in her anfwer. Injunction made perpetual. Atk. 628. 1 Atk. 628. Cetober 1739. Shef field v. Duchefs of Buckinghamfire.

(E) The Force of an Injunction.

1. IT is no excufe for proceeding at law after an injunction is granted, that it is not fealed; for where a defendant or his attorney have been prefent on an order for an injunction being made, and they have proceeded at law before it has been fealed, the court has confidered it as a contempt, and committed them for it. 3 Atk. 567. Mich. 1747. Anon.

2. Where an injunction is obtained till the coming in of the anfwer of one defendant, who refides abroad, the plaintiff is not compellable to bring the money into court, unlefs on fpecial circumftances. 2 Anftr. 366. Mich. 34 G. 3. Shoulbred v. Mac

mafler and others.

3. Where an injunction fubfifts, the court will not grant a commiffion to examine a witnefs in India, without a fpecial affidavit of materiality. 2 Anftr. 386. Hil. 34 G. 3. Moody v. Steele.

14 Vin. 431.

(F) Diffolved, or made abfolute, in what Cafes, and 14Vin.433.

how.

1. UPON exceptions being over-ruled, the injunction is diffolved without motion. Bunb. 30. 1718. Walter v.

Rufel.

2. Simmons filed his bill to be relieved against an award (under the ftat. 9 & 10 W. 3. and for the non-performance of which an attachment had iffued), fuggefting fraud in the arbitrators, and obtained an injunction, exceptions being allowed, defendant had liberty to proceed at law notwithstanding the injunction. Bunb. 182. 172. Simmons v. Mullins.

3. If defendant does not fign his anfwer, the injunction will be continued; fed quære, if plaintiff takes a copy of the answer, it is not a waiver of the informality. Bunb. 251. 1728. Anon.

4. Injunction continued on behalf of the patentee of a new invention after the answer came in, on affidavit of the prejudice which would arife on diffolving it. 3 P. Wms. 255. Eaft. 1734. Gibbs v. Cole.

5. A point which materially concerns the merchants will induce the court to continue an injunction till the hearing. 2 Atk. 229. Mich. 1741. Green v. Suaffo.

6. Where there was an action brought for money had and received, as attorney for the plaintiff, and the defendant files a bill, in which he admits to have received the money, ftates that he placed it in the hands of a banker, who had become bankrupt, and had paid two dividends, and prays an injunction, which was obtained for want of an answer; the court ordered the plaintiff in equity to bring the amount of the two dividends into court, or I 2

the