
    Richardson and Haggatt, Ex’rs. of R. Crow, deceased, Appellants, v. Samuel Prevo, Appellee.
    APPEAL PROM CLARK.
    If a bill for an injunction contains on its face no equity, it will be dissolved on motion. A defense at law, if a legal one, must be made before judgment.
    It is error to decree against a principal and security in an injunction bond, the amount of the judgment at law.
   Opinion of the Court by

Justice Lockwood.

This was a hill in equity, filed in the Clark circuit court, praying relief and for an injuction restraining the collection of a judgment at law. The injunction was dismissed on motion, before answer, and a judgment rendered against appellants and their securities in the injunction bond, for the original judgment and interest and damages. From which decision an appeal has been taken to this court. Two errors are assigned :

1. That the injunction was dissolved before answer, notwithstanding the bill on its face contains sufficient equity:

2. That the judgment was given against both principals and securities, for the whole amount of the judgment enjoined, together with damages and costs.

The first error was not much relied on in the argument, and from an inspection of the bill the court are satisfied that the injunction was properly dissolved on motion. If the intestate had any defense to the action on the bond, it was a legal one, and no sufficient reason is given why he did not defend the suit at law. His laches was therefore a har to the interference of a court of equity.

The second error is well assigned. This court has frequently decided that such a judgment as was rendered in this case, can not be given. The judgment of the court below must be reversed altogether, as to the securities in the injunction bond. It is also reversed as to the judgment against the complainants, for the debt and interest of the judgment at law, and affirmed as to the dissolution of the injunction, and for twenty-eight dollars and eighty cents, the damages and costs of the court below, as against the appellants. The court also are of opinion that the appellants recover the costs of this appeal, , 
      
      
         Vide Hubbard v. Hobson, ante, p. 190.
     
      
       See note (2) to the case of Reynolds v. Mitchell, ante, p. 177.
     