Franco v Franco
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 1795 |
| Date | 03 December 1795 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 30 E.R. 194
IN LINCOLN'S INN HALL, LORD CHANCELLOR.
franco versus franco. In Lincoln's Inn Hall, Lord Chancellor. Dec. 3,1795. An injunction for want of an answer had been obtained to restrain the defendant from all proceedings at law against the plaintiff on an award for payment of money. The award having been made a rule of the Court of K. B. the defendant applied to that Court for an attachment for non-performance of the award, and obtained a rule to shew cause. This is not of itself any breach of the injunction. The bill (upon the circumstances therein stated) prayed an injunction to restrain the defendant from all proceedings at law against the plaintiff in respect of an award, by which the plaintiff was directed to pay the defendant a large sum of money by instalments, the first of which he had omitted to pay at the time limited. An injunction was obtained by the plaintiff for want of the defendant's answer, and was in the usual form. At the time the injunction was served, the award had been made a rule of the Oourt of King's Bench. After service of the injunction the defendant applied for, and [421] obtained a rule to shew cause why an attachment should not issue against the plaintiff for non-performance of the award, but the defendant's solicitor having some doubts of the propriety of this step after the injunction, enlarged his own rule to the first day of Hilary Term. 2 COX, 422. ROBERTS V. ROBERTS 195 The plaintiff now moved that the defendant and his solicitor might stand committed for their contempt in this proceeding, as being a breach of the injunction. Lord Chancellor [Loughborough]. I do not remember any case where the question arose upon an injunction to restrain the proceedings to compel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Patrick Mahony
...8 C. & P. 629. Regina v. Nisbett 6 Cox, C. C., 320. The Queen v. BlenkinsopENRENRENR 1 Den. C. C. 276; S. C., 2 C. & K. 531; S. C., 2 Cox, 420. Rex v. FitzgeraldENR 1 Leach, 20. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 339 M. T. 1854. Crim. Appeal. Court of Criminal fiplitai.* THE QUEEN v. PATRICK MAHONY. Nov. ......
-
Brooks v Purton and Others
...the rule had been made absolute, and, until he actually took the money out of Court, he could not commit any breach. Franco v. Franco (2 Cox, 420); HanJcey v. Morrice (3 P. Wms. 146; 2 Eq. Ab. 528). The cases cited for the Plaintiff do not apply, the injunction in those cases extending to s......
-
Praker v Hutchison
...English Reports Citation: 34 E.R. 819 IN CHANCERY Praker and Hutchison parker v. hutciiinson, 3 Ves. 133.-In Rigby v. Macnamara, 2 Cox, 420, Lord Rosslyn held it to bo the settled practice of the Court of Chancery, not to allow interest on a promissory note, Upon which, it would be [345] of......
-
Brabazon v Lord Lucan
...BRABAZON and LORD LUCAN. Irons v. DouglasUNK 3 Ir. Eq. Rep. 601. De Havilland v. BowerbankENR 1 Camp. 50. Rigby v. M'NamaraENR 2 Cox, 420. Bell v. Free 1 Swanst. 90. Fludyer v. Cocker 12 Ves. 25. Powell v. Martyr 8 Ves. 145. 540 CASES IN EQUITY. 1846. Chesser* BRABAZON v. LORD LUCAN. (a) Se......