
    Mayo v. Haines and Coutts.
    Friday, October 4th, 1811.
    Injunction — Awarding—Court of Appeals. — Thej udges of the court of appeals, or any one of them, out of court, have power to award injunctions, which have been refused by the judge of any superior court of chancery; but this power is not possessed by the court of appeals.
    This was a motion to the court of appeals to grant an injunction which had been refused by the judge of the superior court of chancery for the Richmond district.
    
      
       Injunction — Awarding—Court of Appeals. — Virginia Code 1887, § 3438, confers no original jurisdiction upon one of the judges of the court of appeals to award an injunction, except in the case where the application has been made, first to a judge of an inferior court, either in term or in vacation, and has been refuseft. Fredenheim v. Bohr, 87 Va. 769, 13 S. E. Rep. 193, citing the principal case, and Randolph v. Randolph, 6 Rand. 194.
      See further, monographic note on “Injunctions” appended to Claytor v. Anthony, 16 Gratt. 518; mon-ographic note on "Appeal and Error” appended to Hill v. Salem, etc., Turnpike Co., 1 Rob. 263.
    
   Saturday, October 5th. The President reported that “the court, being unanimously of opinion that the judges of this court, or any one of them, have the power to award injunctions, after a refusal thereof by the chancellor, in the case provided for by the second section of the act of the 27th of January, 1810, ‘authorizing the superior courts of law and chancery to issue writs of cer-tiorari in certain cases, and for other purposes,’ (Sessions Acts of 1799, c. 11, s. 2,) is yet of opinion that such power has not heen given to this court: and, on this ground, without considering the merits of the bill, the application is rejected.”  