Farrar v. Smith

Court of Chancery of South Carolina

Farrar v. Smith

6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 599

Court of Chancery of South Carolina·Decided July 28, 1772·Published

Opinion

Mr. John Rutledge Solicitor for the Complainant having opened the Scope Nature and Tenor of the Bill; moved that the Court would grant an Injunction to stop the Sale of the Lands in Bill mentioned.

[600]*600Mr. Parsons Solicitor for the Defendant objected that the Defendant had not as yet been served with Process to answer. That no Injunction ought to be granted until Subpena had issued for that Purpose. That the Court of Common Pleas had been applied to to set aside the Judgement and had refused it and that no Injunction ought to be granted till the money is deposited in Court.

The Court on hearing Counsel on both Sides did order that the Injunction prayed for do issue and without depositing the money in Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. John Rutledge Solicitor for the Complainant having opened the Scope Nature and Tenor of the Bill; moved that the Court would grant an Injunction to stop the Sale of the Lands in Bill mentioned.

[600]*600Mr. Parsons Solicitor for the Defendant objected that the Defendant had not as yet been served with Process to answer. That no Injunction ought to be granted until Subpena had issued for that Purpose. That the Court of Common Pleas had been applied to to set aside the Judgement and had refused it and that no Injunction ought to be granted till the money is deposited in Court.

The Court on hearing Counsel on both Sides did order that the Injunction prayed for do issue and without depositing the money in Court.

Farrar v. Smith, 6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 599 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1772).

Pincite

6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 599 (Farrar v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.