Mathews v. Douglass

Circuit Court of Tennessee

Mathews v. Douglass

16 F. Cas. 1095, 1 Brunn. Coll. Cas. 196, 3 Tenn. 136

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee

DecidedJuly 6, 1812

StatusPublished

This text of 16 F. Cas. 1095 (Mathews v. Douglass) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mathews v. Douglass, 16 F. Cas. 1095, 1 Brunn. Coll. Cas. 196, 3 Tenn. 136 (circttenn 1812).

Pincite

Opinion

Douglass brought an action at law against Mathews and filed his declaration, to which Mathews demurred. During the pendency of the action at law, and indeed before the demurrer had been determined, Whiteside, on behalf of Mathews, and upon a bill filed for that purpose, moved the court for an injunction.

Dickinson, on behalf of the plaintiff at law, objected to an injunction being granted unless the complainant would confess a judgment. An injunction generally operates as a release of errors, but if it be granted, as this case now stand's, it will not so operate here. Suppose the injunction is granted to stay the proceedings at law, and ultimately there would be a decree against the complainant? He may still go on and, if the declaration is defective, prevent the recovery of *Page 137 the claim or at least delay it, without any pretence founded in justice. And besides, should the demurrer be decided against him, he might prosecute a writ of error. We therefore will not grant the injunction, unless the complainant will confess a judgment at law. And it was done accordingly.

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

Douglass brought an action at law against Mathews and filed his declaration, to which Mathews demurred. During the pendency of the action at law, and indeed before the demurrer had been determined, Whiteside, on behalf of Mathews, and upon a bill filed for that purpose, moved the court for an injunction.

Dickinson, on behalf of the plaintiff at law, objected to an injunction being granted unless the complainant would confess a judgment. An injunction generally operates as a release of errors, but if it be granted, as this case now stand's, it will not so operate here. Suppose the injunction is granted to stay the proceedings at law, and ultimately there would be a decree against the complainant? He may still go on and, if the declaration is defective, prevent the recovery of *Page 137 the claim or at least delay it, without any pretence founded in justice. And besides, should the demurrer be decided against him, he might prosecute a writ of error. We therefore will not grant the injunction, unless the complainant will confess a judgment at law. And it was done accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 F. Cas. 1095, 1 Brunn. Coll. Cas. 196, 3 Tenn. 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathews-v-douglass-circttenn-1812.