Monroe v. Harkness

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Monroe v. Harkness

17 F. Cas. 605, 1 Cranch 157

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia·Decided December 15, 1803·Published

Opinion

[This was a suit by Thomas Monroe, superintendent of the city, against Samuel Harkness.] Attachment for violating an- injunction. A rule granted yesterday, on complainant’s affidavit, to show cause why an attachment of contempt should not issue, for violating the injunction in proceeding towards completing a two-story wooden house. Upon further testimony in support of the rule it was made absolute, and an attachment was issued returnable immediately.

[Cited in Wilcox Silver-Plate Co. v. Schimmel, 59 Mich. 528, 26 N. W. 694.

[A similar attachment was issued against William Bradley. See Case No. 9,713.]

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

[This was a suit by Thomas Monroe, superintendent of the city, against Samuel Harkness.] Attachment for violating an- injunction. A rule granted yesterday, on complainant’s affidavit, to show cause why an attachment of contempt should not issue, for violating the injunction in proceeding towards completing a two-story wooden house. Upon further testimony in support of the rule it was made absolute, and an attachment was issued returnable immediately.

[Cited in Wilcox Silver-Plate Co. v. Schimmel, 59 Mich. 528, 26 N. W. 694.

[A similar attachment was issued against William Bradley. See Case No. 9,713.]

Monroe v. Harkness, 17 F. Cas. 605, 1 Cranch 157 (circtddc 1803).

Pincite

17 F. Cas. 605 (Monroe v. Harkness) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related