
    Blakey v. West.
    Argued, Thursday, Jan. 16th, 1812.
    injunctions — Motion for Dissolution Overruled — Appeal by Consent. — Upon a county court’s overruling a motion for dissolution of an injunction, the parties cannot make the injunction perpetual, by consent, in order that an appeal may be taken; but to authorize an appeal, the cause must be regularly proceeded in to a Anal decree. See in Norris v. Tomlins and Gray, 2 Munford, 386. another case in which an appeal could not be taken by consent of parties. See also M’Call v. Peachy, 1 Call 55, and Clark v. Connay, 1 Munford, 160.
    In this case, (which was a bill of injunction, filed in the County Court of Buckingham,) on the defendant’s motion for ■dissolution, it was ordered and decreed, that the motion be overruled; and (“in order that an appeal might be taken” to the Superior Court of Chancery,) the injunction was “by consent of parties,” perpetuated. The chancellor reversed the decree, and directed the bill to be dismissed; whereupon the complainant appealed.
    
      
      See monographic note on “Injunctions” appended to Claytor v. Anthony, 15 Gratt. 518.
    
   The opinion of this Court, pronounced Wednesday, January 22d, was as follows. “It not appearing, that the injunction was perpetuated, by the act of the County Court, or that any final judgment was rendered, by the said court, on the case, although (for the purpose of appealing) the parties consented that the bill should be perpetuated; —this Court is of opinion that the appeal did not lie to the Superior Court of Chancery; and that that *court, consequently, erred in reversing the said decree, and dismissing the bill. The said decree of reversal is therefore reversed with costs; and the appeal dismissed, in order that the case may be proceeded in, from the decree overruling the motion for dissolution as aforesaid.”  