YOUNG
v.
GRUNDY

U.S. | 1810-02-01
6 Cranch 51 Supreme Court of the United States (1810) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 3 L. Ed. 149 · 1810 U.S. LEXIS 316 · SCDB 1810-003
Cited by 23 cases
Opinion of the Court
Marshall, Ch. J.

Marshall, Ch. J.

If the.answer neither admits nor denies the allegations of the bill, they must be proved upon the final hearing. Upon a question of dissolution of an injunction they are to be taken to be true.

But the court has no doubt upon the question. No appeal, or writ of error will lie to an interlocutory decree dissolving an injunction. .

Writ of error dismissed with costs.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

  • Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1955)
    …n equity, although not at common law. 1 Holdsworth’s History of English Law 214; Crick, The Final Judgment as a Basis for Appeal, 41 Yale L. J. 539, 540-548, 551. Section 22 was rigorously enforced. Rutherford v. Fisher, 4 Dall. 22; Young v. Grundy, 6 Cranch 51. Fragmentary appeals were denounced. Canter v. American Ins. Co., 3 Pet. 307, 318; United States v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 238, 273. 28 U. S. C. §1291: “The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district cour…
  • Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201 (U.S. 1848)
  • ST. Louis v. S. Express Co., 108 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1883)

Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw