HIGHWAY.

See CORPORATIONS, 2, 4, 3.
GRANT, 2.

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

1. The wife's earnings, and the avails
of her labor, during coverture, be-
long to her husband, and he can-
not, as against his creditors, give, 9.
or agree to give, them to her. Cra-
mer v. Reford,
367

2. Real estate purchased with the
wife's earnings, during coverture,
belong to the husband, and is sub-
ject to be taken for his debts. Ib.
3. A husband cannot testify in favor
of his wife in a civil suit in which
she is a party.
Ib.
4. Where a wife's inheritance has
been sold and conveyed by the
husband and wife, and the pro-
ceeds have been used by the hus-
band, without any contract with
the wife for repayment, the wife,
after the death of the husband,
has no claim in equity upon the
real estate of the husband, as
against his creditors. Brown v.
Richards,

clear and distinct act of his, by
which he divested himself of the
property, and engaged to hold it
as trustee for the separate use of
his wife. Dilts v. Stevenson, 407
8. The act for the better securing the
property of married women, con-
fers no power on the wife to take
real or personal property directly
by gift from her husband. 15.
To bring property claimed by the
wife within the protection of the
statute, it must have been acquired
by her in her own right, either be-
fore or after marriag. A purchase
by her, or a mere gift by the hus-
band to the wife, or a declaration
by the husband that the property
is hers, will not avail to defeat the
claim of creditors or of the next
of kin, after the death of the hus-
band.
Ib.

INFANT.

Petition to be relieved from contrib-
uting to the maintainance of an
infant child, on the ground of the
father's pecuniary inability to pay
the allowance decreed by the court,
and that the child should live
with the father, and contribute to
his support, denied; his pecuniary
inability not being satisfactorily
shown, and the character of his
house being such as to render it
improper that she should live
there. Snover v. Snover,

32
5. Where a husband, in the transac-
tion of his own business, assumes
to deal in his wife's name, and
upon the credit of her estate, her
knowledge of the fact will not
operate to charge her with partici-
pation in the fraud, nor her estate
with liability for the indebtedness.
So long as she abstains from active
co-operation with him, her silence
can raise no presumption that he
acted as her agent, or by her au-
thority. Lawrence v. Finch, 2341.
6. In order to charge the separate es-
tate of the wife for debts contract-
ed by the husband in his business,
there must be clear and unequivo-
cal evidence of her assent to that
arrangement.
Ib.
7. Gifts of chattels by the husband)
to the wife are void at law, though 2.
they may be sustained in equity.
But even in equity, where a widow
seeks to establish a gift from her
husband in his lifetime, she must
adduce evidence beyond suspicion,
and nothing less will do than a
clear irrevocable gift, either to
some person as trustee, or by some)

See JURISDICTION, 4.

INJUNCTION.

85

Where the equity of the bill is
not denied, or where the facts upon
which the equity rests are admit-
ted, but the answer sets up new
matter in avoidance, the injunc-
tion will not be dissolved or de-
nied upon the answer alone. The
Society v. Low,
19

The right of a party to an injune-
tion, or to its continuance, cannot
be prejudiced or altered by the
mere fact, that the case is heard
upon the argument of the rule to
show cause why an injunction
should not issue, upon the com-
plainant's motion, and not upon a
motion to dissolve by the defend-

showing that the complainant has
sustained special injury. Hogen-
camp v. Paterson Horse Railroad
Co.,
83

ant. The defendant, in such case,
stands upon the same ground, and
with the same rights, that he would
upon a motion to dissolve. Ib.
3. A denial of the complainant's right,
upon an application for an injune-
tion, must be made upon the de-
fendant's knowledge, and not upon
his belief or opinion.
Ib.
4. Where a party seeks an injunction
to restrain a violation of a cove-
nant under a lease, and such cov-
enant is a continuing covenant 12. A court of equity will interfere,

running with the land, and its vio-
lation is of constant recurrence,
his title to relief is not forfeited
by long delay in making his ap-
plication.
Ib.
5. If, under the circumstances, an in-
junction had been asked without

11. But where the laying of the track
and the use of the road are au-
thorized by the municipal author-
ities, its location rests in the dis-
cretion of the corporation, or of
those having the control and regu-
tion of the streets. It cannot affect
the question of right.

Ib.

by injunction, to restrain the col-
lection of a public tax assessed
upon the property of individuals,
only where the bill contains some
peculiar ground of equitable juris-
diction. Hoagland v. Township of
Delaware,

106

due notice that the complainant 13. Where the material charges of the
insisted upon the performance of
the covenant, the motion might
have been resisted upon the ground
of surprise.

Ib.

6. A judgment entered by confession
upon a bond with warrant of at-

bill are fully denied by the answer,
an injunction will not be granted,
even though the bill disclose clear
ground of equitable relief. Van
Houten v. First Reformed Dutch
Church,

127

torney, is within the provisions of 14. Where A has given his note to

7. Where an injunction is granted
contrary to the statute, the party
is entitled to summary relief. He
will not be put to his motion to
dissolve.

B. at the instance, and for the ben-
efit of C, and in consideration
thereof C has given his note to A,
an injunction will not lie to re-
strain proceedings at law by A
upon C's note, on the ground that
A's note to B has never been paid.
Savage v. Ball,
142

190

15. A denial by the defendant upon
information and belief will not
avail to dissolve the injunction.
He must answer upon his own
knowledge. Irick v. Black,
16. Every one is a necessary party to
a bill, whose joinder is necessary
to the settlement of the complain-
ant's rights. But a defect of par-
ties is not necessarily a reason for
dissolving the injunction.
Ib.

17. An injunction will not be dis-

Ib.
8. Injunction ordered to be set aside
with costs, unless complainant,
within three days, deposit the
money, or give the security re-
quired by the statute; in which
event the injunction to stand. Ib.
9. Where the complainant's right is
doubtful, and no irreparable injury
will result, it is not a proper case
for an injunction. Hinchman v.
Paterson Horse Railroad Co., 76
10. Upon a bill for injunction, an al-
legation that the location of a
street railroad will inconvenience
the complainant's business and 18. An injunction will not lie to re-
diminish the value of his property,
is material and significant, only
where the road is constructed with-
out authority, and the evil com-
plained of is a public nuisance, as

solved as of course, even upon a
full denial of the equity of the
bill, if the court see good reason
for retaining it. Its dissolution
depends upon the sound discretion

of the court.

Ib.

strain proceedings at law upon a
note in the hands of a bona fide
holder, for valuable consideration,
on the ground of fraudulent repre-
sentations made by the payee to

the maker. Dougherty v. Scudder,|

218

ant will succeed at the hearing.
It is sufficient, if there is ground
for supposing that relief may be
given.
Ib.

19. Where the complainant's right is
clear, and the infraction of that!
right establishe, he will not be 26. It is the duty of a complainant
required to give security for such holding an injunction to prosecute
damages as the defendant may sus- his claim with all diligence.

255

Ib.

the equity of the bill, and is sup-
ported by the testimony, the in-
junction will be dissolved. Marsh-
man v. Conklin,

282

28. An injunction will not be dis-
solved as of course, even though
the equity of the bill is denied by
the answer. The court may, in
its discretion, retain the injunction
until the hearing, if the circum-
stances of the case, and justice be-
tween the parties, require it. Firm-
stone v. De Camp,
309

tain by reason of the injunction. 27. Where the answer fully denies
Dodd v. Flavell,
20. Where the injunction deprives the
defendant of the enjoyment of the
property in dispute, and must
prove greatly prejudicial to his in-
terests, if his claim should be es-
tablished, the complainant must
prosecute the case with diligence.
If laches or want of diligence on
his part be shown, the injunction
will be dissolved, or security re-
quired.
Ib.
21. A creditor at large, or before judg-
ment, is not entitled to the inter- 29. The injunction which issued upon
ference of this court, by injunction,
to prevent his debtor from dispos-
ing of his property in fraud of the
creditor. A bill filed by a creditor
of a firm, to restrain an execution
creditor of an individual partner
from enforcing his lien upon the
partnership property, forms no ex- 30. Where the answer is not respon-
ception to the general rule. Mitt-
night v. Smith,

259

22. Where, upon a bill filed to com-
pel the performance of a contract
for the conveyance of real estate,
an injunction issued to prevent the
defendant from dealing with the
property during the pendency of
the suit, an objection that time is
of the essence of the contract, will
not avail the defendant upon a
motion to dissolve the injunction,
Huffman v. Hummer,
263

23. Upon a motion to dissolve an in-
junction, the court will not under-

the filing of the bill, so far modi-
fied as to permit the defendant to
proceed with his suit at law, but
restraining him from setting up at
the trial any other construction of
the contract than that adopted by
this court.

317

sive to the allegations of the bill,
the injunction will be retained.
Randall v. Morrell,
343

See CHATTEL MORTGAGE, 7.
CORPORATIONS, 3.
PARTITION, 2, 4.
PARTNERSHIP, 4.
RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, 2.

INSOLVENCY.

take to determine points of doubt The mere fact of the insolvency of a

or difficulty upon which the merits
of the case may depend, but will
leave them to be determined at
the final hearing, when the evi-
dence is fully before the court. Ib.
21. When the answer admits the ma-
terial allegations upon which the
equity of the complainant's bill
rests, but sets up new matter in
avoidance, the injunction will not
be dissolved.
Ib.
25. It is not necessary to the contin-
uance of an injunction, that it
should be clear that the complain-

company does not of itself, render
invalid or fraudulent a note given
for a bona fide debt. Savage v.
Ball,

See SET-OFF, 2.
PARTNERSHIP, 4.

142

INSOLVENT CORPORATION.

See CONTRACT, 4.

1. A bill of interpleader is proper,
only where the complainant has
property or funds in his possession,
or under control, to which there
are two or more claimants, and
the complainant is doubtful to
which of the claimants the debt 1.
or duty is due. It cannot be sus-
tained where the complainant is
obliged to admit, that as to either
of the defendants, he is a wrong-
doer. Mount Holly, Lumberton
and Medjord Turnpike Co. v. Fer-
rel,
117

2. The want of the affidavit to a bill

of interpleader, denying collusion. 2.
constitutes a ground of demurrer,
but it also may be taken advan-
tage of at the hearing.

ISSUE.

See DEED, 1.

INVENTORY.

Ib.

This court has the power to con-
strue a written instrument upon a
motion to dissolve, but it is a mat-
ter resting in the discretion of the
court, to be exercised according to
nature and circumstances of each
particular case. Morris Canal and
Banking Co. v. Matthiesen, 385
3. But the power will not be exer-
cised, when the ends of justice are
more likely to be attained by de-
ferring the construction till the
final hearing.
Ib.

1. The inventory and appraisement
prescribed by the acts of 1856 and 4.
1860, (Nir. Dig. 273, 274,) operate
as a substitute for the inventory
and appraisement prescribed by
the fourth section of the act of
1851, (Nix. Dig. 270,) and by the
tenth section of the act of 1846,
(Nia. Dig. 277) Dilts v. Stevenson,

407

2. In all cases where the intestate
dies, leaving a wife or child en-
titled to the benefit of the pro-
visions of the acts of 1856 and
1860, (Nix. Dig. 273, 274), the in-
ventory must be made by apprais

An appeal will not lie from an or-
der of the Chancellor, refusing to
order a special guardian appointed
by him, to pay over the moneys
derived from a sale of the minor's
lands to the general guardian, in
the mode authorized by the act of
1865, (Pamph. Laws, 790); the
power of the Chancellor in that
respect being entirely discretion-
ary. In the matter of Anderson, 536
See CORPORATIONS, 8.
INJUNCTION, 12.
PRACTICE, 19.

2. A legacy in the codicil of the same
will to another daughter, of" five
hundred dollars per annum, during
her natural life, to be paid to her
quarterly in advance by my exec-
utor, commencing with her attain-2.
ing her fifteenth year," does not
authorize the payment of interest
to the child.
Ib.