Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Perpetual
Injunctions.

Upon the

sentence of a

which Lord Thurlow decreed, observing, that the court will not permit any person to impede the execution of a decree, so long as the decree remains unappealed from (a).

So upon the principle that the sentence of a foreign court foreign court, of competent jurisdiction, is conof competent clusive; a perpetual injunction was decreed by Lord jurisdiction. King, against an action brought against a person who having accepted a bill of exchange drawn upon him at Leghorn, had instituted a suit there, and, according to the law there, had had his acceptance vacated (b).

Whether the

court will

heritance

upon one

It is generally said that the court will not bind bind the in- the inheritance upon one verdict only (c); Lord Northington, however, in the case of the Earl of verdict only. Darlington v. Bowes (d), expressed great disapprobation of this rule, and inquired if there was any instance of a decree upon one verdict only, observing,

(a) Selby v. Selby, 2 Dick, 678.

(b) Burrows v. Jemineau, Sel. Ca. Ch. 69. S. C. 2 Stra. 733. Mose. 1. 2 Eq. Ab. 524. Vide, generally upon this subject, Ashcomb's case, 1 Ch. Ca. 232. Bluet v. Bampfield, ib. 237. Newland v. Horseman, 2 Ch. Ca. 74. 1 Vern. 21. Dupleix v. De Roven, 2 Vern. 540. Otto Lewis's case, 1 Ves. 298, and the cases at law collected, Phillips on Evidence.

(c) Edwin v. Thomas, 2 Vern. 75. Leighton v. Leighton, 1 P. W. 674. 1 Stra. 404. 4 Bro. P. C. Ed. Toml. 378. Lord Fauconberg v. Pierce, Amb. 210. Lord Sherborne v. Naper, cit. 4 Ves. 206. 2 Ridg. P. C. 224. Bates v. Graves, 2 Ves. jun. 287. Even a court of law will regard the circumstance of the inheritance being to be bound for ever: and in a case of a doubtful and obscure nature, where the property is of great value, has granted a new trial on payment of costs, although it has not thought the verdict wrong. Swinnerton v. Marquis of Stafford, 3 Taunt. 91.

(d) 1 Eden, 270.

that he thought there were some old ones, and that Perpetual if Injunctions. any could be found, he would certainly refuse the application before him for a new trial; but as none were produced, the order was made (a). There is a case before Lord Clarendon, in which a decree was made upon one verdict, and though it was disapproved of by Lord Keeper North (b), yet there is a note in Viner which supports it (c). There is also a subsequent case of very considerable importance, in which the same thing was done, though it may perhaps be accounted for from the extreme iniquity of the defence. An issue devisavit vel non was directed to be tried at the bar of the Court of King's Bench, when a verdict was found in favour of the will (d). Upon the hearing the cause upon the equity reserved, the will was decreed to be established, and the trusts to be executed, which were executed accordingly. The heir at law having afterwards made his will and died, his devisee brought an ejectment; upon which the devisées under the first will filed a

(a) There is a passage in Lord Thurlow's observations, in Robinson v. Lord Byron, 2 Cox, 6. which seems to import that there is a difference between the effect of a verdict upon an action brought by the direction of the court, and an issue sent out of it: the author cannot find that the distinction has ever been attended to in practice.

(b) Fitton v. Lord Macclesfield, 1 Vern. 292.

(c) Wilson v. Story, 14 Vin. Ab. 431.

(d) An account of this remarkable case will be found 1 Bl. Rep. 365. the three subscribing witnesses to the will, the two surviving ones to a codicil, and a dozen servants of the testator, all swore to his insanity; all the witnesses, being nineteen in number, appeared to be grossly and wilfully perjured: the testamentary wit nesses were afterwards convicted of perjury.

Perpetual
Injunctions.

Perpetual injunctions after re

peated trials at law.

bill for an injunction to restrain him from proceeding at law, and a perpetual injunction was decreed upon the hearing (a).

Perpetual injunctions have also been decreed upon mere legal titles, to restrain repeated and vexatious litigation. In many cases, as has been observed by Lord Redesdale, the courts of ordinary jurisdiction admit, at least for a certain time, of repeated attempts to litigate the same question; to put an end to the oppression occasioned by the abuse of this privilege, the courts of equity have assumed a jurisdiction. Thus actions of ejectment have become the usual mode of trying titles at the common law, and judgments in those actions not being in any degree conclusive, the courts of equity have interfered, and after repeated trials and satisfactory determinations of questions, have granted perpetual injunctions to restrain further litigation (b).

(a) Lowe v. Jolliffe, 1 Dick. 383.

(b) Redesd. Tr. 116. Lord Ellesmere used to call ejectments pickpurse actions, in which he that had the last angel prevailed. Hollard v. Battel, Pract. in Chancery unfolded, 32. Courts of law have themselves endeavoured to put some stop to the vexation produced by repeated ejectments, and will accordingly stay proceedings in a second ejectment till the costs of a prior ejectment for the trial of the same title, or of an action for mesne profits, have been paid. Roberts v. Cook, 4 Mod. 379. Lord Coningsby's Doe v. Hatherley, ib. 1152. Doe v. Chambers, Doe v. Holdfast, 6 T. R. 223. Keene v. Angel,

case, Stra. 547.
Bl. Rep. 1180.
ib. 740. Doe v. Roe, 8 T. R. 645. Doe v. Roe, 4 East. 585. Doe
v. Stevenson, 2 B. & P. 22. and the cases there cited. This rule,
however, will not be extended so as to include damages in the
action for the mesne profits. Doe v. Barclay, 15 East. 233. nor

The leading case upon this subject is that of the Perpetual Earl of Bath v. Sherwin (a), where, after five verdicts Injunctions. in favour of the plaintiff, a bill was filed for a perpetual injunction. Lord Cowper, though satisfied of the vexatious nature of the defendant's litigation, yet being unwilling to interpose in a case where the title was purely legal, refused to decree an injunction, but recommended it to the plaintiff as a case proper for the House of Lords; and on an appeal a perpetual injunction was decreed (b). Upon this authority a perpetual injunction was also decreed in the Exchequer, in the case of Barefoot v. Fry, where the defendant had brought five ejectments, and had been nonsuited upon full evidence in three of them, and had verdicts against him in the other two; he had also brought bills in Chancery and the Exchequer, which had both been dismissed (c).

Though a court of equity will not compel a bank- Injunction rupt to give validity to the commission against him against bankrupt by any positive act, yet where he has repeatedly vexatiously questioned it, and thwarted his assignees in its pro- commission. disputing his gress, the court will, in due time, when his conduct appears vexatious, restrain him from further disputing it (d).

In a case before Lord Ellesmere, where it appeared that eight actions were instituted for the

the taxed costs of a suit in equity brought for the same premises. Doe v. Winch, 3 B. & A. 602.

(a) Pr. Can. 261. Gilb. Eq. Rep. 2.

(b) 1 Bro. P. C. 266. Ed. Toml. Vol. IV. p. 373.

(c) Bunb. 158.

(d) Thorpe v. Goodall, 17 Ves. 393.

[blocks in formation]

same cause, he stayed them all by injunction, saying that it was barretry (a).

In all cases in which there is one general right to

(a) Duncombe v. Rendall, Practice in Chancery unfolded, 31. Many of the injunctions granted by Lord Ellesmere are extremely curious, and show how little value is to be set upon precedents in equity at this early period. Thus in the case of Ramsey v. Woodcock, Choice Cases in Chancery, 174, it appeared that Queen Elizabeth had granted a protection to certain persons against their creditors, upon paying a certain composition, and by that protection her majesty willed "that an injunction should be granted out of this court against all such as should implead the said persons, and not content themselves with the aforesaid rate;" and an injunction was accordingly granted at the suit of some of the creditors who had accepted the composition, against others who were suing at law. In another case, an injunction was granted at the suit of an innkeeper, to restrain an action brought by a carrier, for money taken out of his pack while in his house, Clarke v. Colibere, ib. 172. In another case he granted an injunction to restrain an action, merely on the ground that churches and hospitals were not fairly dealt with in the country, Warwick Hospital v. Fielding, Practice in Chancery unfolded, 31; and it is said in the same book, that he ordinarily granted injunctions to stay suits upon the stat. E. 6. for treble damages for not setting out tithes, but permitting them to sue how they will otherwise for their tithes. There is a curious case in Cary (which might perhaps have been more properly noticed in a former part of this treatise), in which the court refused to restrain an action brought by the defendant for words spoken by the plaintiff against him, it being alleged that the plaintiff was drunk when he uttered the words, Kendrick v. Hopkins, Cary, 133. In a case in Tothill, a parson is said to have been prohibited, upon decree, from preaching, Town of Yarmouth v. Dean of Norwich, 66; in another, an injunction was granted against the issue in tail, to restrain the reversal of a fine, Arundell v. Arundell, ib. 115. There is another head of injunction, upon which the cases are extremely numerous, viz. injunctions to restrain proceedings in the King's Bench, where the king's fine had not been paid, Cary, 110. 121. Choice Ca. in Cha. 111. 130.

« ZurückWeiter »