
    *Turner v. Scott and Others.
    June, 1827.
    Injunctions — Dissolution—Piling- of Answer. — Where an injunction is awarded until the answer comes in, the injunction is not dissolved by the coming in of the answer, but is a subsisting injunction until it is dissolved by the subsequent order of the Chancellor.
    Same — Same—Revival by Appeal. — A dissolved injunction is revived by an appeal taken by the plaintiff in the Court of Chancery; and it is improper in the appellee to take out an execution, so long as the appeal is depending.
    Contempt — Jurisdiction.—Quaere, whether the party offending should be punished by the Court of Appeals, or the Court of Chancery?
    This was an appeal from the Chancery Court of Fredericksburg.-
    Turner and others filed a bill against Scott and others, to restrain the defendants from proceeding on two judgments at law obtained by one of the defendants. The Chancellor awarded the injunction until the answer comes in. Afterwards, the answer was filed; and the Chancellor, on motion, dissolved the injunction, and the plaintiffs appealed.
    The defendants issued an execution on the judgments which had been injoined, under the idea that the injunction had ceased to operate by the very terms of the order itself.
    Johnson, for the appellants,
    moved the Court for an attachment against the appel-lees, for proceeding to take out an execution under these circumstances; and contending that it was not regular to grant an injunction till the answer comes in; and that the Court of Chancery must, in all cases, make an order before an injunction can be dissolved.
    Stanard, for the appellee.
    
      
       Injunctions. — See monographic note on “Injunctions” appended to Glaytor v. Anthony, 15 Gratt. 5!8.
    
    
      
       Same — Dissolution—Revival by Appeal. — To the point that a dissolved Injunction Is revived by an appeal taken by the plaintiff in the court of chancery, and that it is improper in the appellee to take out an execution so long as the appeal is pending, the principal is cited in Epes v. Dudley, 4 Leigh 150; Jeter v. Langhorne, 5 Gratt. 199, 208 (at this last page, Judge Almh discusses the above set out decision of the principal case and says it was not necessary, in the principal case to decide, and that the court did not decide that the injunction was revived by the appeal.)
    
    
      
       Contempt — Jurisdiction.—In State v. Horners, 42 W. Va. 415, 26 S. JS. Rep. 270. It was held that the court awarding the injunction, not the supreme court, has jurisdiction of a proceeding for contempt for its violation. See principal case cited therein. See further, monographic note on “Contempts” appended to Wells v. Com., 21 Gratt. 500.
    
   June 13. The Court pronounced the following opinion :

The Court is of opinion, that the injunction was not dissolved by the coming in of the answer, but was a subsisting ^'injunction until it was dissolved by the subsequent order of the Chancellor: that the injunction was revived by the appeal allowed by this Court; and that it was improper in the appellees to proceed to execute the judgment at law, so long as the appeal is still depending in this Court, &c. ; and that the appellee, John Scott, having reasonable notice of this order, do shew cause on, &c., why an attachment should not be awarded against him for his contempt in issuing, or causing to be issued, an execution on the judgment in-joined, after notice of this appeal and service of the writ of supersedeas. But, as this Court entertains some doubt, whether such improper conduct should be punished by this Court or the Court of Chancery, from which the appeal was prayed, the said John Scott, on shewing cause, will not be precluded on this point. 
      
       The President. absent.
     