in prosecuting his suit afterwards, or the bill will be dismissed. But where, at the time of granting the injunction, a subpoena was taken out, returnable at the next term of the court, which was returned, by the sheriff, not found; held, the want of service of the subpœna was not ground for dismissing the bill. In such case, the sheriff's return upon the subpoena is conclusive.1 § 114. Upon injunctions to stay proceedings at law, the court may direct the subpoenas to be served on the law agents of the non-resident parties; but in cases of original bills it will not be permitted, as relief may be obtained in the Federal or State courts of the State or circuit where the party resides.2 § 114 a. A bill for an injunction of a suit, commenced in a circuit court, is not an original suit, within the restrictions. of the judiciary act of 1789, c. 20, § 11, and may be brought against one who is a resident in another State, without serving process upon him in the State where the suit is brought.3 § 115. Notice to defendants that an injunction would be moved for, delivered to them six days before the commencement of the term, was held sufficient." § 116. In New York, where an answer on oath is waived, and affidavits of disinterested witnesses in support of an injunction are annexed to, and filed and served with, the bill; the affidavits in support of the answer, and upon which the defendant relies in his application to dissolve the injunction, must either be served upon the complainant's solicitor with the answer, or must be served on him the usual length of time before the making of the motion to dissolve the injunc tion.5 § 117. A bill of injunction is well served by leaving copy at the residence of the defendant.1 § 118. The defendant being in contempt for want of an ap pearance, the common injunction was extended to stay trial on a motion made without notice.2 $119. The following miscellaneous points have been settled in reference to injunctions. § 120. An injunction properly issued, in support of the prima facie right or title of the party seeking it, does not affect or impair the right to a trial by jury.3 § 121. Injunction is merely a remedial process, and, where the party obtaining it has also obtained judgment upon his cause, the court will not revise the propriety of granting the writ." 122. Writs of injunction, auxiliary to a suit pending, are returnable only to the county where such suit is pending.' § 123. An injunction in chancery is not equivalent to a release of errors in a suit at law.* § 123 a. Where no answer had been put in to an injunction bill, leave was granted to amend, so as to waive an answer under oath, on payment of costs." § 123 b. A reference to a vice-chancellor of a motion to dissolve an injunction does not empower him to authorize an amendment of the bill." 123 c. The amendment of an injunction bill, unless allowed by the chancellor without prejudice to the injunction, displaces the injunction; and the allowance of an amendment by the court, which the complainant could have made as of right, does not necessarily operate a continuance of the injunction until answer.1 § 123 d. For an error in a bill which is amendable, a preliminary injunction will not be refused, although the amendment has not been actually made.' § 123 e. An injunction is not affected by an appeal from it.3 § 124. On application for an injunction, the court may go into the merits, and may dismiss the bill, before answer filed; but the defendant cannot introduce extraneous matter of proof.4 § 125. Injunctions in certain cases may be granted without the filing of a bill."(a) The fact, that the bill was not filed until after the injunction was ordered, is at most but a mere irregularity, which cannot operate a reversal of the order granting it. No particular form is necessary to the writ. The substantial thing is an authentic notification to the defendants of the mandate of the judge, which they must then at their peril obey. 8 Semmes v. Mayor, &c., 19 Geo.471. 2 Packer v. Sunbury, &c., 19 Peun. 211. 3 Merced Mining Co. v. Fremont, 7 Cal. 130. Rose v. Hamilton, 1 Desau. 137. 5 Peck v. Crane, 25 Vt. 146. 7 Summers v. Farish, 10 Cal. 345. (a) In Maryland, no injunction to stay a sale, under the act of 1826, c. 192, can be granted, unless the bill be filed by the party, and contain the allegations required by ? 8 of that act. Gayle v. Fattle, 14 Md. 69. In California, an injunction is ordinarily to be asked for before the complaint is filed, so that it can issue with the summons, though it does not take effect until the filing of the complaint. Heyman v. Landers, 12 Cal. 107. The provisions of the Revised Statutes of New York, prohibiting the issuing of an injunction before the bill is filed, do not relate to cases where the court have in another way obtained jurisdiction. Matter of Hemiup, 2 Paige, 316. § 126. Where a bill prays for relief, by way of injunction, and does not pray for the process of injunction, the process cannot be granted.' § 127. In some cases of injunction, a receiver will be appointed. Thus, there was a devise of a house and lot to trustees, for the use of B. for his life, then of B.'s wife, if she survive him; the trustees to convey the same, after the death of B. and his wife, to their children. Also to B. a legacy for $2,000. With a part of this $2,000, B. built another house on the land, and was in the receipt of the proceeds. C. obtained judgment at law, and issued execution, but failed to obtain payment for want of property subject to execution at law. On bill filed by C. the court appointed a receiver of the rents of the latter house to be applied to the judgments, and enjoined the trustees from receiving the rents.2 But where a bill was filed by the purchaser of land at a sheriff's sale, praying an injunction to restrain one who entered under the former owner from cultivating turpentine trees, on the allegation of irreparable mischief from the defendant's insolvency; and it appeared that the defendant entered by virtue of a lease of the trees for making turpentine, made before the sheriff's sale: held, it would be inconsistent with the relief sought by the bill, to decree the appointment of a receiver of the rent to secure its payment to the reversioner.3 $128. Under a bill praying for an injunction and a receiver, the receiver may be appointed before answer.◄ $ 129. An injunction may prohibit any further interferexecutors with the estate devised, even before the ence by acceptance of the receiver appointed, if there is no danger of injury to the estate.“ Union Bank v. Kerr, 2 Md. Ch. Decis. 460. Johnson v. Woodruff, 4 Halst. Ch. 120. 3 Burns v. Campbell, 3 Jones, Eq. 410. Johns v. Johns, 23 Geo. 31. 5 Ibid. § 130. The court in England will grant the common injunction on any day, although out of term, and not a seal day or a continuation of the seal.' § 131. An injunction does not operate upon proceedings subsequent to its allowance, but before its service.' § 132. In reference to the statutory provision for the remedy by injunction, it is said by the court in Massachusetts: "Where the legislature have the power to provide redress for either a public or private wrong, the remedy or mode of redress is wholly a subject of legislative discretion. If an injunction is better adapted to accomplish the objects proposed, than any other form of judicial process, there seems no reason why the legislature should not have power to direct it." (a) Reece v. Humble, 10 Sim. 117. 2 Ramsdell v. Craighill, 9 Ham. 197. 9 Per Shaw, C. J., Com. v. Farmers, &c., 21 Pick. 552. (a) The Supreme Court of Alabama has power to grant an injunction in a proper case. Davis v. Tuscumbia, &c., 4 Stew. & Port. 421. In Texas, the act of 1846, Hart. Dig. Art. 1599, does not apply to injunctions sought for causes arising subsequent to the judgment. Clegg v. Varnell, 18 Texas, 294. As to the county jurisdiction in Indiana, see State v. Michaels, 8 Blackf. 436. See also Roshell v. Maxwell, 1 Hemp. 25. In New York the Code has not, by the union of equitable and legal powers, enlarged in any respect the previous powers of the court to grant perpetual injunctions. New York, &c. v. Supervisors, &c., 4 Duer, 192. The discretion of the commissioner in granting a specific injunction is not restrained, in South Carolina, by the statute of 1840. It continues in force until dissolved by order of the chancellor. Ellis v. Commander, 1 Strobh. Eq. 188. The provision of the statute of Georgia of 1811, that "in all cases of injunction, they shall be disposed of, and a decision made, at the second term of said court, held in and for said county where such suit originated," means the second term after the parties are served and the cause set down for trial. Johnson v. Holt, 3 Kelly, 117. |