James King of WM. v. Hall
JAMES KING OF WM. v. JOHN B. HALL and HENRY T. HUGGINS
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Solomon Heydenfeldt (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydenfeldt
Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Murray, C. J., concurred.
Tne right of the plaintiff to bring his action and test the claim made against him, is very clear under the provision of the Practice Act.
Bnt there is nothing therein which can warrant the inference, that defendants are to be deprived of their right of action. Nor upon any principle ought it to be permitted ; for if it was, the defendants would be deprived of the remedies of arrest and attachment, either of which in a proper case, they may resort to. It is no answer to say that an injunction bond has been given. The recovery upon that might possibly be very limited, and at any rate, would put the parties to the cost and delay of another action.
Order of injunction is reversed, and the injunction dissolved.
Cited by
- Smith v. Sparrow · 1859-07-01