Bank Br. at Huntsville v. Marshalll, 637 Abram and the State, Allen v. Mannasse & Mosely, Alston and Shields, Alabama Life Insurance & Trust Co. and Cunningham, Alabama Life Insurance and Trust Co. and Smith, Andrews and Gibson, Austin and Upson, Bank Br. at Mobile and Cullum, Bank of the State and Carson, Bank of the State and Woodruff, Bank, Pl. and Mer. and Hazard, Bank, Pl. and Mer. and Crawford, Bank of the State and Fortune, Bank, Pl. and Mer. and Godbold, Bank of the State v. Martin & Hun. tington, Bank, Commercial of Columbus v. Whitehead, Bank of the United States v. Mansony and Hurtell, Bank, Pl. and Mer. v. Leavens, Bank, Pl. and Mer. v. Blair & Morroh, Banks v. Lewis, Batre v. Simpson, Bailey and Brown, Bates and Puckett, 66 Carlisle v. Cahawba and Marion R. 124 Road Co. 615 Chilton v. Comstock, Chilton and Price v. Robbins, Payn- 273 Bradford and Everly, 371 315 Brown v. Bailey, 413 555 Brazier v. Tarver, 569 556 Brock et al v. Yongue et al, 584 248 Brown and Long & Long, Bullock and Holmes, 622 228 652 Bush v. Magee, 710 Blair & Morroh and The Pl. and M. Bank. 613 70 21 Cahawba and Marion Rail Road 60 Co. and Carlisle, 70 148 Carter v. Penn, 140 292 Carson v. The State Bank, 148 299 Carpenter and Magee, 469 313 Campbell, use, &c. v. Spence, 543 385 Caldwell and Lovely, 684 516 Caldwell v. Meador, 755 Castleberry & Collins v. Fennell,, 642 58 223 411 Douthitt v. Hudson & Brockman, Doe ex dem Brown & Wife v. Hunt Douglass and Cowling, Dodge & McKay v. McKay & Mc. Doe ex dem Miller v. Cullum, Dearman v. Dearman & Coffman, Duffee and Remy, use, &c. Edgar v. Cook, Adm'r, 129 Hill v. Rushing & Wood, Holbrook, Bowman & Co. and Lacy, 88 Elliott & Perkins v. Mayfield & Wife, 417 Elliott, use, &c. v. Montgomery, Erwin, Adm'r, and Cullum et al, Everett and Townsend & Gordon, 440 Johnson, Adm'r, v. Neil and Wife, 647 Johnson et al and Hayes, Ex'rx, Florence Bridge Co. and White's heirs,464 Jones & Conner v. Jemison & Stew. Lumpkin and Hester, Wilson, White Marshall and Br. B'k at Huntsville, Mansony and Stephenson et al, Mayfield and Wife and Elliott and Mauldin et al and Chambers et al, 389 68 McRae v. Juzan et al, McKay & McDonald v. Dodge & McMichael & Shackleford v, Rapelye McMillan et al and Miller et al, McMillan et al v. Gordon & Stoddard 326 238 Wier v. Davis and Humphries, 442 Townsend and Gordon v. Everett, 607 Willard Freeman & Co. v. Womack, 539 Topp and Croft, REPORTS OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED, JUNE TERM, 1842. WISWELL ET AL V. MUNROE. 1. A bond given to obtain an injunction in obedience to the fiat of the Chancellor will not operate as a supersedeas, or have the force and effect of a judgment upon a dissolution of the injunction, if it describe a different judgment from that sought to be enjoined by the bill. 2. When a cause is carried to the Supreme Court by writ of error and execution superseded by bond, the judgment of the Court below is merged in the judgment of affirmance of the Supreme Court. 3. A bond executed to obtain an injunction of a judgment affirmed in the Supreme Court, which described only the judgment of the Court below, will not operate as a supersedeas, or have the effect of a judgment on a dissolution of the injunction. 4. A bond so executed as to enjoin a judgment at law, has the force and effect of a judgment upon a dissolution of the injunction, without any order by the Chan. cellor to that effect. 5. The statute which requires the Register to certify to the law court the fact that an injunction has been dissolved, is mandatory only, and the failure or refusal of the Register to certify the fact, will not prevent the plaintiff at law from suing out execution on the injunction bond. APPEAL from the Chancery Court at Mobile. This was a petition filed in the Chancery Court by the appellee, against the appellants. The record discloses the following facts: At the February Term, 1838, of the County Court of Mobile, Denys Casey & Co. recovered a judgment against Charles Cullum for $4,702 44. |