Difference between revisions of ".MjkwNzY.MTAyNDQ2"
(Replaced content with "e")
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
Revision as of 15:15, 28 June 2021
3. The second injunction was like the first void of all equity, the Court of Appeals, having awarded a supercedeas, taking the case from this court, and both injunctions were dissolved, and the bills dismissed at your last court, after which the agreement for time & partial payments, was bona fide made as before said. This defendant agrees with the Complt, that those injunctions were rightfully dissolved; both for the want of jurisdiction & equity, as remarked by the Court in its opinion. And he must be allowed to add, there is the same want of jurisdiction & equity in the present application, to say nothing of the agreement with this defendant for time - giving day of payment &c This defendant has reason to know, that his co-defendant has become greatly embarrassed by the acts of others, and the very low price at which his lands sold under his deeds of trust, may place it out of his power to pay all his debts at this time & hence the greater necessity of holding Complt to his agreement aforesaid This insolvency, if insolvent he be, has arisen since the transfer & notice thereof to Complt. indeed Jno Rosser has never taken the oath of insolvency. In further answer, he would ask why the Complt did not make reference to the supercedeas bond given &c ? Was not this bond on file in the Clerk's office, did he not know of it then, as well as now? and shall he be protected against his own lackes? Whilst this defendant insists that the supercedeas bond is good, and valid, in all respects, and in the form uniformly taken, as he is informed by the Clerk of this Court, from the foundation of the Court, yet he denies the right of this Court in this way, to raise an issue so proposed and to pass judgment upon it. This he supposes belongs to the Court of appeals alone, and "the issue and judgment of the Court thereon," must be had in that, and not in this, and hence his plea to the jurisdiction of this honorable Court. That Court can remedy the supposed evil, if any such exists, by ordering a new bond, which will be certainly given, if required by that Court. This Court can make no such requirement, or order. The original appeal bond filed with the bill as beforesaid, is in the form observed by your clerk from the commencement of the Court; and if Rosser shall fail to prosecute his appeal with effect, then the condition is forfeited, to the full extent of the penalty. But as above said, this Court has no jurisdiction, or control over it, directly, or indirectly. The denies the 9th allegation of the bill, and he would ask whence is it, that the Complt is harrassing this Court, with injunction after injunction, and again after you had twice decided you had no jurisdiction or control over the subject, and will not apply to the Court of Appeals, who have unquestioned ju-