Ruffin v. Bank1

• Decision Date: 14 June 1894
• Parties: RUFFIN v. COMMERCIAL BANK.1
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

19 S.E. 790

90 Va. 708

RUFFIN

v.COMMERCIAL BANK.¹

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 14, 1894.

Injunction—Grant bt Supreme Court—Effect in Lower Court—Bonp — Usury — Equitable Relief.

1. An order of a judge of the supreme court granting an injunction which had been refused by the lower court is, when returned to the corporation court, and recorded there, in effect, an order of that court; and the judge of that court may act upon it as an order of his own court, and increase the bond fixed by the supreme court. But this cannot be done at rules, when the court is not in term; but the case must be matured as any other case, and regularly proceeded with.

2. It was error to order an increase of injunction bond where the adverse party was fully protected by collateral for his claim.

3. Where a plaintiff is pursuing in equity the remedy allowed by section 2822, Code 1887, providing for relief against usury, it is error to dismiss his bill because he has an adequate remedy at law.

Appeal from corporation court of Danville; A. M. Aikin, Judge.

Bill by one Ruffin against the Commercial Bank. From a decree for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Riely & Leigh, Julien Meade, Berkely & Harrison, and A., T. Montague, for appellant.

Peatrose & Harris, for appellee.

LACY, J. This is an appeal from an order made by the judge of the corporation court of Danville on the 8th day of April, 1892, and from a decree made in the suit at the June term, 1892. The bill was for an injunction to lestrain the prosecution of two common-law suits, and seeking, under section 2822 of the Code of Virginia, relief against usury. The injunction prayed for was denied by the judge of the corporation court on the 30th of March and 1st of April, 1892; was granted by a judge of this on the 2d of April, 1892, and a bond fixed at $250. On the same day the Commercial Bank, the appellee, gave notice of a motion to have the bond, under the injunction order, increased on the 6th day of April, 1892. On that day the motion was heard upon affidavits, whereupon the judge of the corporation court increased the bond to $2,500, which the plaintiff was not able to give, as his assets, in large amounts, were already in tho hands of the bank, and constituted his chief property. Upon the affidavits it appeared that the collateral deposited in the notes which evidenced the debts sued on was ample to secure the payment of the debts.

The order of the judge of this court granting au injunction which had been refused by the lower court is, when returned to the corporation court, and recorded there, in effect, an order of that court. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the judge of that court, if so advised, might act upon it as an order of his own court, when it came before him. But this cannot...