Pawley v. Morrall

6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 390
Court of Chancery of South Carolina·Decided April 9, 1742·Published

Opinion

Whereas by an Order of this Court on the 5 th March last, It was Ordered, That the Injunction in this Cause should be Dissolved, unless Cause were this day Shewn to the contrary: Now upon opening the Matter unto this Court by Mr. Rutledge of Counsel for the Defendant It was Moved that the said Injunction might be Dissolved Mr. Graeme 4 of Counsel for the Complainant [391]*391Offered some Reasons for continuing the same, Whereupon and on hearing what was alledged by the Councel on both Sides; It appeared to this Court That the Complainant’s Bill hath not sufficient Equity in it for continuing the Said Injunction; It is therefore Ordered That the Injunction in this Cause be dissolved, and the Bill dismissed out of this Court with Costs of Suit to be paid by the Complainant.

Alexr Stewart Deputy Register

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

Pawley v. Morrall, 6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 390 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1742).

6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 390 (Pawley v. Morrall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.