
    Peter Kamper v. Mary Hawkins.
    Several questions arose in this case:
    1. High Court of Chancery and District Courts—Statute Conferring on Latter Jurisdiction of Injunction Cases —Constitutionality.—Tile high court of chancery being a constitutional court, and the district courts, as constituted, being legislative: whether an act of Assembly (passed Dec. 12th. 1792, § 11), giving to the district courts “the same power of granting injunctions to stay proceedings on any judgment obtained in any of the said district courts, as is now had and exercised by the judge of the high court of chancery in similar cases, and (declaring that) the said district courts may proceed to the dissolution, or final hearing, of all suits commencing by injunction, under the same rules and regulations as are now prescribed by law. for conducting similar suits in the high court of chancery,”—was constitutional. The question arose upon amotion in a district court, for an injunction to stay proceedings upon a j udgment of such court.
    2. Same—Same—How Composed—Right to Exercise Functions of Chancery Judge.—The district courts being composed, by act of Assembly, of two judges of the general court, which was a constitutional court; whether judges of the general court could constitutionally exercise the functions of a judge in chancery.
    
    3. Constitution—Separation of Common Law and Chancery Jurisdiction.—Whether the intention of the constitution was, absolutely to separate the common law and chancery jurisdictions.
    4. Same—Same—Right of Legislature to Unite in Same Court.—Whether, if the constitution absolutely separated the common law and chancery jurisdictions, the legislature could unite them in the same courts, directly or indirectly.
    5. Constitution of 1776—Right of Legislature to Alter. —Whether the constitution of 1776 was of superior authority to ordinary acts of the legislature, and revocable, or subject to alteration, by that body. These questions were elaborately discussed by the members of the court, who differed upon the second and third; but unanimously concurred in the negative of the fourth and fifth. Upon the first, the question immediately before it for decision, the court unanimously certified to the court below: That the powers and duties assigned to be performed (in the 11th section of the act of 12th Dec. 1793), could only be executed by those who might be constituted judges in chancery, in the manner prescribed by the constitution, and that the motion for an injunction in the district court, must be overruled.
    
      
      High Court of Chancery and District Courts—Statute Conferring on Latter Jurisdiction of Injunction Cases— Constitutionality.—In Wise v. Bigger, 79 Va. 273, it is said: “And, from that day to this, it has been the indisputable and clear function of the courts, federal and state, to pass upon the constitutionality of legislative acts; and the grounds of this jurisdiction, as well as the duty of its fearless exercise, are admirably stated by Chief Justice Marshauu, at pages 170 to 180, 1 Oranch’s Reports, before cited; and vide 1 Va. Cases, 20.” See also, citing the principal case Sharpe v. Robertson, 5 Gratt. 590, 591, 600, 613; Lamb v. Taylor, 1 Va. Dec. 571.
    
   The adjournment of this case originated in novelty and difficulty, touching the constitutionality, or judicial propriety of the judges of the District Court, carrying the following clause of an act of the General Assembly into execution, which was conceived to be opposed to, or in direct violation of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The title and clause of the said act are thus : “An act reducing into one, the several acts concerning the establishment, jurisdiction, and powers of District Courts. ’ ’ (Passed December 12,1792.)

*“Sect. XI. Each of the said district courts in term time, or any judge thereof in vacation, shall, and may have and exercise the same power of granting injunctions to stay proceedings on any judgment obtainedin any of the said district courts, as is now had and exercised by the judge of the high court of chancery in similar cases, and the said district courts may proceed to the dissolution or final hearing of all suits commencing by injunction, under the same rules and regulations as are now prescribed by law for conducting similar suits in the high court of chancery.”

The Record, Arguments, and Decision, here follow.

At a District Court, held at Dumfries, the twenty-third day of May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three—Present, the Honourable Spencer Roane, Esq.  