Shields v. McClung
West Virginia Supreme Court
The opinion of Judge Haymond contains a sufficient statement of the case. First Error — The injunction should not have been dissolved on an exparte motion in Chambers until a sufficient notice had been given to the Plaintiffs. The notice given in this case was too general, vague and uncertain.
Read the full summary
The opinion of Judge Haymond contains a sufficient statement of the case. First Error — The injunction should not have been dissolved on an exparte motion in Chambers until a sufficient notice had been given to the Plaintiffs. The notice given in this case was too general, vague and uncertain. It neither specified the grounds of the motion nor the place at which the motion would be made, ]^jjer Traphagan, 2 Halst. ch. 200. Second Ejrbob — The injunction should not have been dissolved until the Plaintiffs had an opportunity to have process served on all the Defendants. Until the cause had been…
1Opinion of the Court
Haymond, President :
This is a Bill of Injunction to a judgment rendered at law, upon a paper writing purporting to be the bond of the Plaintiffs and Defendant, Hiram Scott. The judgment at law against which the bill is filed is a judgment by default. Process was duly served on the Defendants in the action at law, but they failed to appear and make defence. The original bill filed in the cause avers that the paper or pretended bond on which judgment was rendered is not, and never was tire bond of the Plaintiffs or either of them; that the consideration of the supposed bond, was a small lot of…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Capehart's Ex'r v. DoweryWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- Evans v. TaylorWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1886
- Smith's Adm'r v. Charlton's Adm'rSupreme Court of Virginia · 1851
- Black v. SmithWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1878
- Hubbard v. YocumWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1888
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.