¶1The opinion of this Court, pronounced Wednesday, January 22d, was as follows; “ It not appearing, that the injunction was perpetuated, by the act of the County Court, or that any final judgment was rendered, by the said court, on the case, although (for the purpose of appealing) the parties consented that the bill should be perpetuated ; — this Court is of opinion that the appeal did not lie to the Superior Court of Chancery; and that that *76court, consequently, erred in reversing the said decree, and dismissing the bill. The said decree of reversal is therefore reversed with costs; and the appeal dismissed ; jn order that the case may be proceeded in, from the decree overruling the motion for dissolution as aforesaid.”
3 Va. 75
Blakey v. West
Decided January 22, 1812
Supreme Court of Virginia · decided 1812-01-22
<p>Upon a comity court’s overruling a motion for dissolution of au injunction, the parties cannot make the injunction perpetual, by consent, in order that an appeal may be taken ¡ but to authorize an appeal, the cause must he regularly proceeded in to a final decree.</p> <p>See in Norris v. Tomlins and Gray, 2 Munford, 686. another case in which an appeal could not he taken by eon-seat of parties. See also M‘Call, v. Peachy, 1 Call. 55. and Clark v. Connoy, 1 Munford, 160,</p>
Decided 1812-01-22