
    
      Horace Loveland v. Michael A. Burnham et al.
    
    H. L, PALMER> f°r complainant;
    D. D. Field, for defendants,
   Application to dissolve or modify, or set aside an injunction, on the ground of the insufficiency of the bond which had been given on obtaining the same. The complainant did not justify, and the surely only justified in the sum of $500, without stating his residence, or that he was a freeholder or a householder. Nor was the bond acknowledged by the surety, or proved by a subscribing witness, as required by the 173d-rule. The bond was in the penalty of #500. The chancellor observed that although the 31st rule fixes the minimum of the penalty of a bond to be taken by the officer allowing an injunction out of court, it was intended that such officer should exercise a reasonable discretion in fixing the amount of the security to be given, so that it should in all cases be sufficient to cover the amount of damages the defendants may sustain if it should eventually that complainant was not entitled to an injunction.

And he decided that the officer allowing an injunction should always require a bond for a largér sum than $500, where there is reason to suppose the damage occasioned by the writ, if it should continue until the termination of the suit, will exceed that sum.

'jf'fiat the sureties in Such a bond should also he required to justify in at least double the penalty. And that whenever an injunction is issued without the requisite security it will be the duty of the court to set aside such injunction, with costs.'.

Injunction set aside with costs.  