Strong v. Harrison
Strong v. Harrison
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
It was error to dismiss the bill on the motion to dissolve the injunction. Maury v. Smith, 46 Miss. 81.
The motion to dissolve was heard in term time more than five days after the answer had been filed, and as the motion does not appear in the record we are unable to say that it had not been on the docket three days preceding the hearing — in such cases no notice is necessary. Code of 1880, § 1914. *
The objection of appellants that there was no evidence introduced authorizing the claim for attorney’s fees is not well taken. The testimony may have been oral, and in support of the decree we must assume that it was.
The decree, in so far as it dissolves the injunction and awards payment of the attorney’s fee, is affirmed,, and in so far as it dismisses the bill is reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Mary Day Strong v. Sim. Harrison, Sheriff
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Chancery Practice. Dissolution of injunction. Dismissal of bill. It is error for a chancery court to dismiss a bill upon a motion to dissolve the injunction in the case, whether the injunction be wholly or partially dissolved. Code 1880, $ 1917; Maury v. Smith, 46 Miss. 81. 2. Same. Motion to dissolve injunction. Notice, when not required. . Where, upon an appeal from a decree on a motion to dissolve an Bijunction, the motion does not appear in the record, nor any notice thereof to the complainant, but it does appear that the defendants’ answer was filed inore than five days before the hearing on the motion, this court, being unable to say that the motion was not on the docket for five days before the hearing, cannot hold that the complainant was entitled to notice of the motion. Code 1880, l 1914. 8. Same. Dissolution of injunction. Attorney’s fees. Evidence. Upon an appeal from a decree dissolving an injunction and allowing the defendant an attorney’s fee, this court will presume, if there be no evidence in the record as to such fee, that it was based upon oral testimony.