Woodall v White
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1844 |
| Date | 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 67 E.R. 441
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[411] woodall v. white. Feb. 19, 1844. The pendency of proceedings before the Judge at Chambers to settle the pleas to the action is no ground for varying the form of the order for extending the common injunction to stay trial. The common injunction was obtained in this case, and extended to stay trial after the Defendant at law had obtained leave to plead several matters, and after the Court of Queen's Bench had directed a reference to the Judge at Chambers to settle the pleas. Mr. Eomilly and Mr. Anderson moved that the order for the injunction might be varied by inserting the direction that it should be without prejudice to the Plaintiff at law proceeding to complete the issue ; but His honor [Sir James Wigram] refused to vary the common order.
[411] woodall v. white. Feb. 19, 1844. The pendency of proceedings before the Judge at Chambers to settle the pleas to the action is no ground for varying the form of the order for extending the common injunction to stay trial. The common injunction was obtained in this case, and extended to stay trial after the Defendant at law had obtained leave to plead several matters, and after the Court of Queen's Bench had directed a reference to the Judge at Chambers to settle the pleas. Mr. Eomilly and Mr. Anderson moved that the order for the injunction might be varied by inserting the direction that it should be without prejudice to the Plaintiff at law proceeding to complete the issue ; but His honor [Sir James Wigram] refused to vary the common order.
[411] woodall v. white. Feb. 19, 1844. The pendency of proceedings before the Judge at Chambers to settle the pleas to the action is no ground for varying the form of the order for extending the common injunction to stay trial. The common injunction was obtained in this case, and extended to stay trial after the Defendant at law had obtained leave to plead several matters, and after the Court of Queen's Bench had directed a reference to the Judge at Chambers to settle the pleas. Mr. Eomilly and Mr. Anderson moved that the order for the injunction might be varied by inserting the direction that it should be without prejudice to the Plaintiff at law proceeding to complete the issue ; but His honor [Sir James Wigram] refused to vary the common order.
English Reports Citation: 67 E.R. 442
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
442 WOODS V. WOODS 3 HARE, 411. [411] woods v. woods...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woods v Woods
...E.R. 441" class="content__heading content__heading--depth1"> English Reports Citation: 67 E.R. 441 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY Woodall and White [411] woodall v. white. Feb. 19, 1844. The pendency of proceedings before the Judge at Chambers to settle the pleas to the action is no ground for vary......