Jones v. Magill

1 Md. Ch. 177
High Court of Chancery of Maryland·Decided May 16, 1825·Published

Opinion

Bland, Chancellor.

In this case the defendants, Thomas Magill, and Thomas N. Harding, having filed their answers, and entered on the docket notice of a motion at the next term to dissolve the injunction issued in the said case, it is ordered, that the said motion stand for hearing at the next term, provided a copy of this order be served on the complainant or her solicitor before the twentieth day of June next.

A copy of this order having been served as required, and no counsel appearing for the plaintiff, the motion to dissolve the injunction was submitted on the part of the defendants, Magill and Harding.

11th August, 1825. — Bland, Chancellor. — An injunction, if prayed for by the bill, may be granted in any case on the bill alone, before a subpoena has been issued, or the party summoned; except to stay proceedings at law in an action of ejectment by a lessor, under the act of 4 Geo. 2, c. 28, s. 3.; or to recover mortgaged property under the act of 7 Geo. 2, c. 20, in which cases no relief, or injunction can be granted before the defendant shall have been summoned and heard.

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

Jones v. Magill, 1 Md. Ch. 177 (Md. Ct. App. 1825).

1 Md. Ch. 177 (Jones v. Magill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schermehorn v. L'EspEnassE
2 U.S. 360 (Supreme Court, 1796)
Osborn v. Bank of United States
22 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1824)
Todd v. Pratt
1 H. & J. 465 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1803)
M'Mechen v. Mayor of Baltimore
2 H. & J. 41 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1806)