Court have not a Jurisdiction in Legacies, but from the general care it takes of Infants (a).

In all Cases of Legacies, where there is a Trust, or, as it has been said, any thing in the nature of a Trust, the Court of Chancery will grant an Injunction, Trusts being proper only for the Cognizance of that Court (b).

An Injunction to stay proceedings in the Admiralty Court, in a Suit for the condemnation of a Ship, on the ground that a note had been obtained by duress from the Captain, acknowledging the Right of capture, has been refused, as the Court of Admiralty has sufficient authority to investigate the circumstances (c).

An Injunction may, on proper grounds, be obtained to stay proceedings in a Court of Law. Such Injunctions issue by the order and under the Seal of the Court, not on account of any Supremacy which the Court assumes over a Court of Law, but in respect of its Jurisdiction in a Court of Equity, by which it controls the Party, and not the Court, from proceeding at Law (d). The Court of Chancery in these cases admits the Jurisdiction of the Court of Common Law; and the ground on which it issues the Injunction is, that the Parties are making use of the Jurisdiction contrary to Equity and Conscience (e).

The Court, it seems, may enjoin against proceedings in any part of the kingdom; for instance, it may

restrain the entering up of a Judgment, or carrying on any Action in the Court of Great Session in Scotland (f).

Such Injunctions are sometimes used to stay Trial, or after a Verdict to stay Judgment, or after a Judgment, to stay Execution, or proceedings under an Execution (g); or if Execution has taken place, to stay the Money in the hands of the Sheriff; or if part only of a Judgment Debt has been levied by a fieri facias, it may issue to restrain the suing out of a Capias ad satisfaciendum (h). And where such Injunctions are prayed by the Bill, there is commonly a suggestion in it that the Complainant is not able, for some reasons therein stated, to make his defence in the other Court, though he hath a good discharge in Equity; or that the other party proceeds at Law for a penalty, and threatens to make the complainant pay; or that the other Court has not Jurisdiction of the cause which is cognizable in the Court where he files his Bill; or that the other Court refuses some rightful advantage, or does injustice to him in the proceedings, or has not power to do him right (i).

An Injunction to stay Execution is never granted except for want of Appearance or Answer (unless where a Warrant of Attorney has been fraudulently obtained) because the Parties ought to have applied sooner; nor can an Injunction be obtained to prevent the Sheriff selling under an Execution, unless an Injunction has been previously obtained against the

(f) Wharton v. May, 5 against Woden, 3 Bro. C. C. Ves. 71. 73. Prac. Reg. 201.

(g) See Lady Arundel and Phipps, 10 Ves. 144. Codd

(h) 3 Wood. Lect. 406, 7.
(i) Prac. Reg. Wyatt's Edit.

p. 232.

Defendant to stay execution, and the Sheriff when enjoined may sell under subsequent executions (k).

In an ancient case, (22 Edw. IV. fol. 37.) Hussey, Ch. Just. says, "If, after Judgment, the Chancellor grant an Injunction, and commit the Plaintiff at Law to the Fleet, the King's Bench will by Habeas Corpus discharge him." This doctrine is not now sustainable; but it plainly intimates that Injunctions before Judgment were even at that early period sustainable. The issuing of such Injunctions formed one of the grounds of Impeachment against Cardinal Wolsey (1); but precedents of Injunctions, even after a Judgment at Law, might before his time be adduced, as was shown in the course of the memorable dispute on this subject in the Reign of James the First, between Lord Bacon and Sir Edward Coke (m).

If an Injunction be prayed to stay proceedings at Law upon a Bond, the Plaintiff must agree to give Judgment, and be bound by order to bring no Writ of Error (n).

In the Exchequer, an Injunction stays all Proceed ings in whatever stage they are. Sometimes, however, the Court will on motion permit notice of Trial to be given, on an undertaking not to sue out Execu'tion (o). But it is not so in Chancery; for there, if on service of the Injunction the Defendant hath not

(k) Rouse v. Wood, before Lord Chan. Mich. Term 1816, MS.

(1) See Fiddes's Life of Wolsey.

(m) See the proceedings on this occasion in "Jurisdiction of Chancery vindicated," at the

end of vol. 1 Cha. Rep. and in the Biog. Brit. by Kippis, Art. "Coke.'

(n) Anon. 1 Vern. 120.

(0) See Legg v. Da Costa, mentioned 3 Wood. Lect. 410, 411, in note.

commenced his Action, he cannot sue out Process; if he hath, but not served the same, or having served it, hath not delivered or filed any Declaration, he cannot proceed; but if there has been a declaration, he may call for a Plea, and for want of it sign a Judgment; or if the cause is at Issue, he may go on to Trial, and if that hath been had, and a verdict obtained, he may proceed to Judgment, and affirm, if Error hath been brought; but if Judgment hath been executed, and the Debt and Costs levied thereon, the Sheriff cannot pay the same to the Defendant, Execution being stayed till Answer or further order (p).

Where a Defendant is abroad, there must be special ground to show that the discovery required from him is material, before an Injunction will be granted (9). The affidavit should state, that "the Plaintiff is advised, and verily believes, he cannot safely go to Trial without the Answer; and that he verily believes the Answer will produce discovery material to the just Trial of the Action" (r). The Court never examines how far this Affidavit is well founded, but trusts the Affidavit of the Plaintiff, instead of itself determining the merits at Law, unless it appears clearly on the face of the Bill that the Discovery would be immaterial, in which case the Injunction would be refused (s).

An Injunction will not be extended to stay Trial just at the time of the Assizes, unless the Plaintiff

(p) See 1 vol. Hind, p. 222; and see Bishton v. Birch, 2 Ves. & Bea. 41.

(9) Revet against Braham, 2 Bro. C. C. 640.

(r) White v. Steinwacks, 19 Ves. 84. Hartley v. Hobson, 2 Cox 117.

(s) White v. Steinwacks, 19 Ves. 85.

will give Security for the Costs (t); and not even then, if he has been dilatory in making the application (u).

It is not necessary to state in detail all those various occasions in which a Court of Equity interferes by Injunction to restrain Proceedings at Law. It is a general Rule, illustrated by an abundance of cases, that wherever a Party by Fraud, Accident, or otherwise, has an advantage in proceeding in a Court of ordinary Jurisdiction, which must necessarily make that Court an Instrument of Injustice, a Court of Equity, to prevent a manifest wrong, will interpose, by restraining the Party whose conscience is thus bound, from using the advantage he has improperly gained (a). In most of those cases of Accident, Mistake, or Account, which have been dilated upon, and in which equitable relief is afforded, a party proceeding at Law would be restrained; and so he would in the generality of those cases of Fraud which will hereafter be considered. In short, it seems, that wherever a legal right would be relieved against in a Court of Equity, an Injunction will be granted to restrain proceedings at Law in respect of such legal right.

If, for instance, a Bond, Promissory Note, Policy of Insurance, or the like, has been unfairly procured, an Injunction may be obtained against proceedings at Law. As where the Bond or Note was contrary to

(t) Blascoe v. Wilkinson 13 Ves. 454. And where a cause was on the eve of being tried in London, and Mr. Bell moved for an Injunction to stay trial, Mr. Heyes opposed it, and cited this case; and Vice-Chancellor

Plumer refused the Injunction.
Anon. 2 March 1816, MS.

(u) Field v. Beaumont, 3 Madd. Rep. 102.

(x) Redesdale's Tr. Pl. 103. Garth v. Cotton, 1 Dick. 205.