Hightour v. Rush. ( 1805 )

^P'HIS was an injunction bill. — The process was not returned to this term, to which it was returnable; and no proof was made by the affidavit of Mr. Hightour, that he had delivered the process to be executed.

Bay-wood argued, that although an injunction might be dissolved for unnecessary delay, that here Mr. Seawell appeared for the defendant, for a dissolution of the injunction, which proved that they had notice of it 5 and although not seised with process, defendant might answer and dissolve the injunction i£ fee «odd, upon the merits.

The injunction was dissolved, because it did not appear the complainant had endeavored to-have the process served.