Smith against Pemberton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 May 1665 |
| Date | 28 May 1665 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 22 E.R. 698
Chancery Division
S. C. 2 Freem. 125. Held over-ruled, Lord Portalington v. Soulby, 1834, My. & K. 107.
[67] love and others against baker, roll, and clutterbuck. May 28 [1665]. [S. C. 2 Freem. 125. Held over-ruled, Lord Portalington v. Soulby, 1834, 3 My. & K. 107.] A Subpoena serv'd on one Defendant here, ordered to be good Service for the other Defendants beyond the Seas. The Defendants brought a Joint-Action at Leghorn against the Plaintiffs, and had there arrested the Plaintiffs Goods. The Defendant Baker being here, and the other Defendants at Leghorn, Baker answered here, and by Order a Subpoena left with him was to be good Service for the other Defendants, and thereupon an Attachment for want of an Answer ; and upon this an Injunction was granted to stay the Defendants Proceedings at Leghorn. Now the Defendants moved to dissolve the Injunction, and insisted it was a new Case. The Lord Chancellor conceived it to be a dangerous Case to stay their Suit there, and so deprive them of their Remedy. To which it was answered, All Parties might have Justice, and be fully heard in this Court: But the Plaintiffs would be without Remedy, if the Defendants proceeded at Leghorn, and got Possession of their Goods. And the Court declared they would advise with the Judges herein; and afterwards the Lord Chancellor declared, he had advised with the Judges, and that they were of Opinion the Injunction ought to be dissolved. Sed quaere; for all the Bar was of another Opinion. It was said, The Injunction did not lie for Foreign Jurisdictions, nor out of the King's Dominions. But to that it was answered, The Injunction was not to the Court, but to the Party.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Agnew v King
...In Earl of Macclesfield v. FittonENR 1 Vern. 168. Lord Chesterfield v. Lady Cromwell 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 287, pl. 1. Smith v. PembertonENR 1 Ch. Ca. 67. Va. I.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 471 AGNEW v.-KING. (1901. No. 1051.) Mortgage—Transfer with concurrence of mortgagor—Arrears of interest paid b......