TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gray v. Veirs

John T. Gray v. Samuel C. Veirs, Joshua Davis and James F. Braddock

Gray v. Veirs, 33 Md. 159 (1870)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1870
Judges
Robinson
Citations
33 Md. 1591870 Md. LEXIS 79
Headnotes
Action on an Injunction Bond. An action cannot bo maintained on an injunction bond, until after the final termination of the suit in which tho bond was issued.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. This was an action on an injunction bond, brought by the appellant against the appellees. The declaration stated that by an order of the Circuit Court for Montgomery county, in Equity, the injunction issued in a cause therein, wherein Samuel C. Yeirs, was complainant, and John T. Gray, defendant, had been dissolved, and that upon appeal taken by the said Samuel C. Yeirs, the judgment of said Circuit Court was affirmed with costs to the appellee, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. To this declaration, the defendants demurred generally. The Court ruled the demurrer good and judgment being against the plaintiff he appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Robinson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Robinson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This 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.

No 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.

If 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.)

JSiow 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.

The 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.

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

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1876–1877: 11882–1883: 11884–1885: 11886–1887: 11894–1895: 11902–1903: 11906–1907: 11910–1911: 12000–2001: 118762026peak 1876 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Derdeyn v. Donovan81 Miss. 696 (1902)
  2. Network International L.C. v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc.133 F. Supp. 2d 713 (D. Maryland 2001)
  3. Cohn v. Lehman93 Mo. 574 (1887)
  4. Brown v. Galena Mining & Smelting Co.32 Kan. 528 (1884) · Concurrence
  5. Penny v. Holberg53 Miss. 567 (1876)
  6. Dougherty v. Dore63 Cal. 170 (1883)

Most recent

  1. Network International L.C. v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc.133 F. Supp. 2d 713 (D. Maryland 2001)
  2. Vicksburg Water Works Co. v. Mayor of Vicksburg54 So. 852 (Miss. 1910)
  3. Cortelyou v. Houghton27 App. D.C. 188 (D.C. Cir. 1906)
  4. Derdeyn v. Donovan81 Miss. 696 (1902)
  5. Browne v. Edwards & McCullough Lumber Co.62 N.W. 1070 (Neb. 1895)
  6. Cohn v. Lehman93 Mo. 574 (1887)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list