8. Interest and sheriffs' commissions, on a part of a debt which is enjoined, should be included in the injunction.' § 9. Where an injunction is granted on a judgment, and afterwards dissolved, and the judgment is collected pending the bill, the court, on final decree perpetually enjoining the judgment, may decree the money to be refunded, though there is only a prayer for general relief.2 § 10. An injunction may issue against a judgment recovered in one State, on a prior judgment recovered in another State, for cause affecting the judgment of the other State. So it is held in Illinois, that a bill may be filed to enjoin proceedings upon a judgment of one of the courts of the State, recovered upon a judgment in the courts of another State, if the party applying has not been guilty of any laches in the assertion of his rights, and the judgment of the foreign. court has been reversed. So equity will restrain the use of an advantage gained in a court of ordinary jurisdiction of another State by fraud, accident or mistake.' Thus A., a manufacturing company in the State of Connecticut, having had dealings with B., a dealer in New York; C., as the agent of A., purchased a quantity of iron of B., B. knowing that A. was the party with whom he was contracting. Afterwards B. brought a suit for this iron, against C. individually, in the Superior Court of the city of New York, and process was duly served on C., by arresting his body. Soon after the suit was instituted, C. called on D., the attorney of B., and explained to him the circumstances under which the contract was made, and the mistake in suing him individually, instead of A., his principal. D. said to C., that he would see him again on the subject. This D. did not do; but he, shortly after, wrote C. a letter, informing him, that nothing would be done in relation to that suit, until further notice should 1 Greathouse v. Hord, 1 Dana, 105. 4 McJilton v. Love, 13 Ill. 486. Pearce v. Olney, 20 Conn. 544. be given him. C., relying on this communication, and hearing nothing further from D. or B., did not appear, in person or by attorney, before the court to which the process was returnable; but D. appeared, and obtained a judgment against C. without his knowledge. The record stated, that on the first Monday of April, 1846, came, as well the plaintiff, by his attorney, as the defendant, in his proper person; and the defendant defends the wrong and injury, and says nothing in bar or preclusion of said action; wherein the plaintiff remains therein undefended against the defendant. In November, 1848, B. brought, in Connecticut, an action of debt on the judgment, during the pendency of which, C. filed his bill to restrain B. from enforcing his judgment. Held, 1. That the taking of judgment operated as a surprise upon C., tantamount to a fraud, and justly called for the interposition. of a court of equity, unless prevented on the ground of some technical objection; 2. That the "full faith and credit" required by the Constitution of the United States, and the law of Congress, to be given to the judicial proceedings of other States, did not preclude such interposition, inasmuch as a court of equity here does not impugn the New York judgment, but considers the equities subsisting between the parties and acts upon them personally, restraining the one from pursuing a judgment so obtained, and protecting the other; 3. That the record of the New York judgment, finding that the defendant "appeared, in his proper person, and said nothing in bar or preclusion of said action," does not necessarily conflict with the facts above stated, inasmuch as the plaintiff in that suit might, under the laws of New York, have obtained a judgment and had a record made, like the judgment and record in question, without any actual appearance of the defendant.'(b) Pearce v. Olney, 20 Conn. 544. (b) Different local rules prevail in different States, with reference to the enjoining of judgments. In Texas, an injunction to stay execution should be directed to the District Court of the county in which judgment was § 11. With regard to the terms upon which a judgment will be enjoined; it is held that, where a judgment debtor comes into equity for protection, on the ground that he has satisfied the judgment, the door is fully open for the court to modify or grant his prayer, upon such conditions as justice. demands.1 § 12. An injunction to a judgment at law will, in general, be at the cost of the complainant.2 § 13. Unless in aid of a suit at law, it is held that no injunction should be granted, where the applicant for it does. not submit to a judgment at law, as he cannot contend at law and in chancery at the same time.3 14. An order for injunction to a sale under execution is not effectual, until the execution of the bond required by the order. 15. In North Carolina, under the statute of 1800, before a judgment will be enjoined, the amount of it must be paid to the clerk of the court." 376. § 16. The statute of New Jersey (Rev. Laws, 704, § 6), Mechanics', &c. v. Lynn, 1 Pet. 2 Mosby v. Haskins, 4 Hen. & M. 427. 3 Conway v. Ellison, 14 Ark. 360. rendered. Hendrick v. Cannon, 2 Tex. 259. In Kentucky, where A. and B. obtained judgments against each other in different counties; held, the Chancellor of the county in which the defendant lived might enjoin one judgment, and set it off against the other. Mitchell v. Stewart, 4 J. J. Marsh. 551. But a judgment in the Circuit Court of one county cannot be enjoined by the Circuit Court of another. Lamaster v. Lair, 1 Dana, 109. In Ohio, an injunction cannot be issued by the Court of Common Pleas, to restrain an execution of the Supreme Court, upon a decree of alimony. The remedy is by application to the Supreme Court on return of the execution. Sample v. Ross, 16 Ohio, 419. which directs an injunction to stay proceedings in a personal action at law, after verdict and judgment, on application of the defendant, unless the money be first paid into court, applies to bills of interpleader.' The statute is not confined to proceedings in the suit in which the judgment is recovered. So it applies, where an injunction is prayed by the defendant in a judgment, to restrain proceedings by foreign attachment to enforce the judgment.3 § 17. In Maryland, an injunction may be granted to stay execution, in some cases, without bond." 18. In New York, on a bill to restrain proceedings at law upon a judgment, the plaintiff will not be ordered to pay the amount of the judgment into court, unless there is danger of his insolvency. And where a creditor's bill charged that the defendant, pending a suit at law by the plaintiff, confessed judgment to another person, for a debt not due, and which was fully secured; an injunction to stay proceedings upon the judgment was granted, without a deposit of security by the plaintiff." 19. A purchaser, who shows no sufficient reason for not making his defence at law, and seeks equity for relief, must be governed by the general rule on this subject, to submit to take a title at the hearing, and complete his purchase." § 20. In a suit to enjoin the collection of a judgment, the complainant gave a bond for the exact amount of the judgment, conditioned to pay when ordered by the Superior Court. Held, the sureties were bound only for that sum. 8 § 21. To obtain an injunction against a judgment, on the 1 Morris, &c. v. Bartlett, 2 Green Ch. 9. 2 Kinney v. Ogden, 2 Green Ch. 168. 3 Ib. Cape, &c., 3 Bland, 606. Rodgers v. Rodgers, 1 Paige, 426. 6 Burns v. Morse, 6 Paige, 108. 7 McLaurin v. Parker, 24 Miss. 509. 8 Dickerson v. Cook, 3 Duer, 324. ground that the complainant cannot safely pay it, there being several claimants, he should file a bill of interpleader, and pay the debt into court for the party showing himself entitled thereto.1 § 22. In some cases there may be successive injunctions to the same judgment. Thus, after the dissolution of one. injunction, another was granted to the same judgment, and made perpetual, it appearing that the contract in question, though not tainted with fraud, was founded in a mistake of both parties in relation to the existence of a fact of which both parties were ignorant, and which was not known to the complainant until after the first injunction was dissolved." § 23. The question of time often becomes material in cases of this nature. § 24. Delay in an application for relief against a judgment furnishes a presumption against the equity of the proposed defence.3 § 25. Thus, after a verdict for the plaintiff on a bond, equity will not order an account of transactions which are old and stale, although occurring, in part, subsequently to the making of the bond, for the purpose of obtaining a discount. So equity will not disturb a judgment by default, upwards of twenty years old, and an execution title to real estate vested under it, for want of notice of a writ attaching the defendant's real estate, when he was openly at large within the State; the facts having come to his knowledge about seventeen years before the filing of his bill for relief; the sole excuse for the delay to proceed being, that the complainant had no evidence of the facts upon which he relied for relief, until the passage of a recent statute enabling partics to be witnesses for themselves in civil cases; and the Fowler v. Lee, 10 Gill & J. 358. 2 Armstrong v. Hickman, 6 Munf. 287. 4 3 Bartlett v. Glendy, 3 Mis. 345. Randolph v. Randolph, 1 Hen. & M. 181. |