From Transcribe Wiki
Revision as of 11:30, 9 March 2021 by Vbrooks (talk | contribs) (Protected ".MjkwNzU.MTAyNDI4" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

that case, the answer would have been that the decree was superceded and no longer in force, & was beyond the reach of this court. It is not true that your respondent owes the complainant a farthing, as charged, but he honestly believes the reverse to be true, & hopes in the appellate Court, to recover against the complainant. Your respondent does not boast of his wealth, but he would be very unwilling to exchange pecuniary situations with the complainant: & if the Court of Appeals affirms the decree of the Court below, the complainant knows, that the amount of the decree will be paid; the security given by your respondent in his appeal bond is abundantly good; but if this were not so, he is advised it is no cause for an injunction: On making a proper case before the appellate court, & he would take cognizance of the case before them, and order other and better security, under penalty of dismissing the appeal. Your respondent has more cause to regret the delays of the Court of Appeals than the complainant, for if the latter prevails, he has unquestionably good security, on the contrary, if your respondent prevails, he has no security whatever: but independently of this, your respondent supposes, that he had a right to carry his case to the Court of Appeals, although it might deprive the complainant of his pretended equity, and he is advised, that this Court cannot further set in judgment upon that case: it is rightfully in the Court of Appeals, & can be acted upon by that Court alone. Your respondent has never before heard, that the appeal bond has been misplaced, nor does he believe it, he has heard no complaint on the part of the officer, whose duty it is to take & preserve such bonds; & he presumes that officer would be responsible in case said bond is lost; but independently of this, certainly that can be no ground for the interference of equity, even if true, for suit might be brought on a lost bond, or a copy of it might be used, or the proper court might order a new bond. The original bond was given in exact accordance with the requisition of the Court of Appeals, & with most ample security. Your respondent having thus fully stated the facts of the case, and answered in detail all the allegations of the amended bill, prays that your honor will dissolve the injunction with damages, and dismiss the amended and original bills with costs &c Corporation of Lynchburg Sc. John Rosser this day personally appeared before the undersigned a justice of the peace in and for said Corporation, and made oath to the truth of the above and foregoing [illegible] as the law directs. Given under my hand this 29th day of January 1847 Henry A Schoolfield