Clark v. Wood

Notice of trial is a breach of an injunction staying proceedings in an action at law. On bill by one in possession of lane}, for the specific performance of an alleged agreement by the defendant to purchase the land at sheriff’s sale, on execution against the-complainant, and take a raorlgage for the amount advanced by him to pay incumbrances, an injunction to restrain proceedings to recover possession from the complainant will not be retained until the hearing, if the amount due is large in proportion to the value of the land, and the responsibility of the complainant is comparatively limited.

The hill was filed by Silas C. Clark, who had given several mortgages on his lands; and against whom several judgments had been recovered. It alleges that an agreement was made between him and the defendant Freeman Wood, prior to the sheriff’s sale, under the executions then levied on the' complainant’s lands, that Wood should pay the incumbrances on the land, except the mortgage to Phoenix, the other defendant, which the complainant says he intended to make other arrangements to pay off, and that Wood should become the purchaser at the sheriff’s sale, and that the complainant should have the right to redeem the lands by paying to Wood what he should advance in paying incumbrances, and that Wood should give the complainant a writing to that effect, or that he would release the lands to the complainant,' and take a mortgage thereon from the complainant, for the money he should advance, as soon as the sheriff’s deed. should he made to him, Wood, at the option of the complainant; and that the complainant should remain in the possession of the lands. The hill further states, that after the property was struck off and conveyed by the sheriff to Wood, he made a deed for the land to Phoenix, who is charged with notice of the agreement, in consideration of the amount which he, Wood, had advanced and $50. And that Phoenix had commenced an action of ejectment at law to recover possession of the land. The hill prays performance of the said agreement, and an injunction restraining further proceedings in the ejectment. The injunction prayed was allowed. Answers were prrt in, and a motion made to dissolve "the injunction.