Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

33 Md. 159

Gray v. Veirs

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided July 1, 1870

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1870-07-01

This was an action on an injunction bond, brought by the appellant against the appellees.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1870-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2001

1 district · 5 state decisions

3018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Robinson, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2This is a suit upon an injunction bond, and the plaintiff in his declaration avers that the order below dissolving the injunction was affirmed by this Court upon appeal, and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court for Montgomery county for further proceedings.

¶3No case was cited in the argument, nor have we been able to find one, in which a suit has been maintained upon an injunction bond until after the final termination of the cause.

¶4If the injunction was dissolved upon bill and answer, and the cause remanded, the complainant has a right to proceed with his case, because he may overcome the denials in the answer by proof, and the Court may be of opinion upon final hearing that the injunction ought to be re-instated and made perpetual.

*161(Decided 1st July, 1870.)

¶5JSiow if flie position of tlie appellant be correct, he would be entitled to recover damages and costs for a breach upon the injunction bond, pending the equity case, although it may appear by the proof and subsequent proceedings that the complainant was entitled to the relief prayed. Such cannot be the law.

¶6The appellant might have contented himself with the averment that the injunction had not been prosecuted with effect, which would have rendered necessary an affirmative plea on the part of the appellee. But ho undertook to show what had become of the equity case and how the injunction had been dissolved, and in doing this he disclosed a state of things, to wit, the pendency of the case, which if true, also indicated that there had not been such a breach of the bond as entitled the plaintiff to sue at that time.

¶7We think therefore the Court was right in sustaining the demurrer, and the judgment must be affirmed.

¶8Judgment affirmed.

/33/md/159 · .json · Public domain