the Policy of the Law, and void (y); as for bringing about a Marriage (≈); or where a Note was obtained for Money won at play (a); or where, on a Policy of Insurance, the Life insured was, at the time of the Insurance, in a state of Health very different from what it was represented to be (b); and other multifarious cases of a similar description.

If a Purchaser takes an ineffectual conveyance, whereby the legal Estate descends to the Heir at Law, and a Judgment Creditor proceeds against the Heir at Law, a Bill lies to prevent him taking out Execution on his Judgment (c).

So a Bill will lie for a Discovery, and an Injunction to stay proceedings, on the ground of a Verdict obtained by Collusion and Fraud (d).

Courts of Equity will protect by Injunction their officers in the execution of its Process. If, therefore, an Action for false imprisonment is brought, founded on an Arrest made by virtue of process which issued irregularly out of the Court of Chancery (e); or if an Action of Trespass is brought for going over the Plaintiff's ground, to serve him with a Subpoena; the Court will enjoin the Party (f), because such Court only ought to examine, judge of, and punish the irregularity.

So, likewise, the Court will enjoin Proceedings in Ejectment where otherwise the execution of Trusts decreed by the Court would be overturned; as where

the Court had decreed a Partition and Conveyance of an Estate, and an Ejectinent was brought, which tended to overturn the decree of the Court (g). So, after the dismissal of a Bill for the specific execution of an Agreement, the Plaintiff being unable to make a good Title, an Injunction may be obtained to re strain the Plaintiff from proceeding at Law (h).

If an Execution be issued on account of a separate debt of one Partner against the Partnership Effects, a Bill may be filed by the solvent Partners, to take an Account of what is due to such Partner, and for an Injunction in the mean time; for under such an Execution the Creditor is only entitled to the Inte rest his Debtor has in the Partnership Property, after the Accounts are wound up (i), as hath before been remarked (k).

And upon the same principle, if a separate commission be issued against one Partner, on an act of bankruptcy, previous to issuing of a foreign Attachment by a Joint Creditor against the Joint Property, an Injunction may be obtained till the Partnership affairs are wound up (1); but if the trade was carried on in the West Indies as well as in London, an Attachment by a Creditor of Property belonging to the Firms in the West Indies, where the solvent Partners resided, could not be impeached; because the West Indian Partners could not be controlled in the management of their Trade, or restrained by any

(g) Baker v. Hart, 1 Ves. 29. and see Flower v. Herbert, 2 Vez. 327.

(h) Macnamara v. Arthur, 2 Ball & Bea. 349.

(i) Taylor v. Field, 4 Ves. 396; and sce Dutton y. Mor

rison, 17 Ves. 209, S. C. 1 Rose 213; and see Barker v. Goodair, 11 Ves. 85.

78.

(k) Ante, p. 77.

(1) Barker v. Goodair, 11 Ves.

proceeding here, from paying and applying the Partnership Assets as they think fit (m). An Injunction will lie to stay proceedings in the Lord Mayor's Court (n).

It has been holden, that the Chancellor has no Jurisdiction to stay, by Injunction, the Process of a Court of Law upon an Award made a Rule of Court under the stat. 9 and 10 Wm. 3. c. 15 (0). It would be different, it seems, if the Award were made in the course of a Cause (p).

II. An Injunction may be obtained to restrain the Infringement of a Patent. If one obtains a Patent, and has been long in the exclusive enjoyment of it, an Injunction will be issued against a Person invading it, until the right is tried at Law; and this, although the Chancellor may be doubtful whether the Patent is good (q); but if the Patent be clearly bad, an Injunction will not be granted (r). Formerly, in the case of a Patent, on opening the case, the Party was sent to Law to establish his right, and then came back for an Account (s); but as the right under Letters Patent appears on Record, it has been held unnecessary to establish the right at Law previous to the filing of a Bill (1); unless the Patent be recent (u). An Injunction, however, in

(m) Brickwood v. Miller, 3 Meriv. 279.

(n) Barker v. Goodair, 11 Ves. 78. In Rew v. Dixon, 6 May 1817, such an Injunction was granted.

(0) Gwinnett v. Bannister, 14 Ves. 530.

(p) Ib. p. 532.

(9) Hill v. Thompson, 3 Meriv. 622; Harmer and Plane, 14 Ves. 130; and see the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge

Newsham v. Gray, 2 Atk. 286, an Issue appears to have been directed, but no Injunction in the mean time; and see Hill v. University of Oxford, 1 Vern. 275.

(r) See Grierson v. Eyre, 9 Ves. 341.

(s) Dodsley against Kinnersley, Ambl. 406. Anon. 1 Vern.

120.

(t) Redesd. Tr. Plead. 119. (u) Hill v. Thompson, 3

these cases, will be refused, unless the Plaintiff swear as to his belief he is the original Inventor (t), and undertakes immediately to bring an Action.

There can be no exclusive right in a subject (a Secret or Recipe for preparing a Medicine, for instance) not protected by Patent; nor can a Person be prevented selling it under the same Title if he does not assume the name and character of the Inventor (u).

If a Patent for an invention is restrained to England, it will not extend to Ireland. There must be a distinct Patent under a distinct Great Seal for Ireland (a). And the right in a Patent for one Country is confined to that, and will not enable the Party to bring the Article for Sale into the other (y). There must be separate Bills upon distinct invasions of a Patent (≈).

III. Injunctions to stay Waste are very frequently applied for in Chancery, and have, in practice, superseded the preventive common-Law remedy by Writ of Estrepement, and the additional remedy by means of that Writ given by the stat. of Gloucester (a). And a mere threat to commit Waste is sufficient to ground an Injunction upon; it not being necessary for the Party to wait till the Waste is actually committed (b); but there must be some act done, or threat made, on which to ground the Injunction, not mere belief of Waste intended (c). Where the Title is doubtful (d),

(t) Hill v. Thompson, 3 Meriv. 622.

(u) Canham v. Jones, 2 Ves. & Bea. 248. (x) 6 Ves. 718. (y) Ibid.

二

(*) Dilly v. Doig, 2 Ves. jun. 487.

(a) See as to this Writ, Fitz. Nat. Bre. 139, &c. edit. 1730. (b) Gibson v. Smith, 2 Atk. 183. S. C. Barn. 491.

(c) See Hanson v. Gardiner, 7 Ves. 310.

(d) Field v. Jackson, 2 Dick.

591.

or disputed, as between Devisee and Heir at Law (e), or otherwise (f), an Injunction will not be granted. But in general, it seems, it may be obtained to stay Waste, on the part of a Person or Persons, (even of a child in ventre sa mere) (g), having the next immediate vested Estate of Inheritance in the subject matter of the waste. Trustees to preserve Contingent Remainders, may, before the Contingent Remainderman comes in esse, obtain an Injunction to stay Waste (h).

An Injunction may also be obtained by Persons entitled to contingent (i) and executory Estates (k) of Inheritance, against Tenant by the Curtesy (1), in Dower, or as Guardian (m), or as Jointress, who is Tenant for life (n), or against him who has a legal Estate of Inheritance, but being a Trustee is not liable to an Action of Waste (o), to inhibit them from committing Waste, on Houses, Lands, or Woods, by

In

(e) Smith v. Collyer, 6 Ves. 89. See also Norway v. Rowe, 19 Ves. 154, 5; and see Jones v. Jones, 3 Meriv. 173. this case Sir Wm. Grant, M. R. observed, "I own I cannot see a very good reason why the Court, which interferes for the preservation of personal property, pending a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, should not interpose to preserve real property, pending a suit concerning the validity of a devise."

(f) Anonymous, 6 Ves. 51.

(g) Robinson v. Litton, 3 Atk. 211. 2 Vern. 711. 1 Vez. 555. Pre: Chan. 50. Barn. 274.

754. S. C. 1 Ves. 524, 546, and also S. C. 1 Dick. 183, where Lord Hardwicke's Judgment is given from his own notes.

(i) Williams v. Duke of Bolton, 3 P. Wms. 268, in note 1.

(k) See Hayward v. Stillingfleet, 1 Atk. 425; and see Perrot v. Perrot, 3 Atk. 95. Robinson v. Litton, 3 Atk. 209, 11. Fearne on Executory Devises, p. 536. 4th Edit.

(4) Hardr. 96.

(m) Clarke and Thorpe, 2 Vez. 233.

(n) Nels. 190, 220. 1 Ves. 264.

(0) Tothill 37, 38. 2 Ch. Ca.