Corder v. Martin
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error lo Marion Circuit Court. 1. It was obviously the intention of the legislature, in requiring a bond, to secure to the defendant the amount to be enjoined. Yet, it could not have been intended, that the liability of the obligors should depend upon the rendition of a decree, upon the dissolution of the injunction, expressly awarding to the defendant the amount enjoined, for this court had decided that no such decree could be rendered.
Read the full summary
Error lo Marion Circuit Court. 1. It was obviously the intention of the legislature, in requiring a bond, to secure to the defendant the amount to be enjoined. Yet, it could not have been intended, that the liability of the obligors should depend upon the rendition of a decree, upon the dissolution of the injunction, expressly awarding to the defendant the amount enjoined, for this court had decided that no such decree could be rendered. Powers & Ashley v. Waters, 8 Mo. 800. 2. The costs of the suit were within the letter of the condition. The defendants could not be liable for the amount of…
1Opinion of the CourtGamble, Judge
Corder, the plaintiff in this case, sued one Lane, and recovered judgment. Lane obtained an injunction to restrain the collection of the money, and gave an injunction bond to the plaintiff, executed by the present defendants, Martin and Glas-cock. The condition of the bond, after reciting that the injunction was granted to restrain the collection of the judgment recovered against Lane, provided that, “ if Lane should abide the decision which should be made on the bill, and pay all sums of money, damages and costs, that should be adjudged against him if the injunction should be dissolved, then…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Suspension of Operator's License of Levin v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1960
- Dorriss v. CarterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Steele v. TutwilerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
- Buggeln v. CameronArizona Supreme Court · 1907