the case had been decided in the
plaintiff's favor, but had no know-
ledge of the particulars, or that the
plaintiff was by such decision enti-
tled to the rents due that day, col-
lected such rents. On the 9th of
April, a judgment was entered in
conformity with the decision, and
was made to bear date of the day
the decision was announced. The
defendant was not under any in-
junction in the action, and the de-
cision did not direct an injunction.
Upon these facts, a motion to pun-
ish the defendant for collecting
those rents, as for a contempt, was
denied.
.id

5. Counterclaim.
Vide COUNTERCLAIM, (ante.)

6. Discovery.

1. On an application for a discovery
of books, in order to enable the
plaintiff to prepare his complaint,
if it appear that the plaintiff is
seeking to recover moneys received
by the defendants, as his factors and
agents, selling his goods, and they
have not rendered accounts of sales
in full, the Court will order them
to render such account or give a copy
of their book showing such sales
from the time of the last account
of sales rendered. The plaintiff,
upon those facts, is entitled to such
account of right. Ruberry v. Binns
et al.,.

685

8. Joinder of Causes of Action.

Vide JOINDER, (ante.)

9. Injunction.

1. Where a party obtains the privi-
lege of building a party wall, one-
half on his own lot and one-half on
the lot of another, and covenants
that he will build such wall, but
does not extend the wall so far as,
by his covenant, he is bound to do,
and thereupon the other party enters
upon the ground and begins to ex-
tend the wall upon the land of each
to the stipulated point or line, the
latter will not be restrained by an
injunction, at the instance of such
party in default, from making the
extension. The Rector, &c., of the
Church of the Holy Innocents v.
Keech,..
...691

2. Even if, in such case, the party
extending the wall has not obtained
a strictly legal title to any of the
ground of the other, or to the use
thereof, still a Court of equity will
not restrain him from doing what
ought to be done, and what the
other was bound to do for him...id

3. But, where the point, or line, to
which the party wall was to be ex-
tended by the party covenanting
is in dispute, and it is not clear
what, in that respect, is the true
construction of the covenant, and
where, also, the extension of the
wall, as attempted by the other, will
require the cutting away of a stone
stoop or portico and do permanent
injury to the building of the former,
the Court will interpose by injunc-
tion pendente lite, and restrain the
extension until the right can be
ascertained and settled by the aid
of such extrinsic facts as may be
properly proved to aid in determin-
ing the true meaning and effect of
the covenant.
..id

4. The provision of section 220 of the
Code requiring that on the service

of an injunction a copy of the affi-
davit on which it is granted be
served therewith, is satisfied by the
service of copies of whatever pa-
pers were laid before the Judge,
and on which he ordered the injunc-
tion whether the allowance was
upon a summons and a complaint
duly verified or upon affidavits com-
monly so called. Leffingwell, Re-
ceiver, v. Chave et ux., ....703

5. An injunction order may be al-
lowed and signed by the Judge, and
be delivered to the officer before
the service of the summons upon
the defendant; but the service of
the order upon the defendant before
the summons is served, is irregular
and is ineffectual. (Code, §§ 220 and
99.).....

6. The neglect to file the papers
upon which an injunction is granted
within the time prescribed by the
rules of Court, may be excused, and
it does not render the service of the
injunction a nullity or require that
it be set aside...

10. Judgment.

..id

18. Service of Papers.

Vide INJUNCTION, 4, 5.

19. Stay of Proceedings.

1. In an action in which a divorce
has been granted and a reference
had to settle the amount of alimony,
on which reference the testimony
is very voluminous, and the amount,
reported to be just, large, and the
defendant's counsel alleging errors
committed by the Referee, and being
in doubt whether, under a system
of practice recently introduced, it is
necessary, in order to review the
proceeding, to make a case and move
thereon to set aside the report and
for a new trial or further hearing
before the Referee, or whether he
can move on the report and testi-
mony and his exceptions, the Court
will extend the time and stay the
plaintiff's proceedings to enable the
counsel to determine his course, and
prepare his papers. Forrest v.
Forrest,
..672

the plaintiff or his attorney for the
security of the defendant, and exe-
cuted by any persons possessing the
requisite qualifications, agreeing
that the plaintiff shall pay to the
defendant the damages he may sus-
tain, is an undertaking "on the part
of the plaintiff" within the mean-
ing of section 222 of the Code,
requiring security on granting an
injunction. It is not necessary that
it should be executed by the plaintiff
or his agent or attorney, Leffing-
well, Rec'vr, v. Chave et ux., ...703

2. Such undertaking must be given
in form absolute and binding either
the plaintiff, or some one or more
who undertake for him, absolutely
for the payment of such damages;
and it may, if the Judge require
sureties, also bind others as sureties
in form and in terms as sureties.
There should be a principal and the
Judge may require sureties; but
such principal may be one who un-
dertakes on behalf or for the plain-
tiff, without the latter being a party
to the instrument....

23. Verdict.

Vide VERDICT, (post.)

24. Verification.

...id

1. A Mutual Insurance Company
took up a subscription, by which
the subscribers agreed to give their
notes for premiums in advance of
insurance to be effected by them,
the subscription not to be binding
until the sum of $300,000 was sub-
scribed. That sum was in form
subscribed, the defendants being
subscribers, and the defendants
voluntarily gave their notes for the
amount of their subscription. All
parties acted in good faith, and
without any fraud, misrepresenta-
tion or concealment: Held, that
such notes were, in the hands of the
Company, valid binding notes, which
the Company had a right to nego-
tiate for the purpose of paying
claims or otherwise, in the course of
its business, notwithstanding it ulti-
mately appeared that some of the
subscriptions were not valid binding
subscriptions, and notwithstanding,
if the notes had not been given,
the defendants might have legally
refused to give them on the ground
that the condition of the subscrip-
tion had not been in fact satisfied.
Holbrook v. Basset et al.,.......147

2. Where an Insurance Company, in
order to raise money for the imme-
diate purposes of its business, bor-
rowed notes from its friends and
they were discounted and the money
paid over and so used, and by the
agreement the Company were to
pay such notes and to secure that
payment were to deposit and did
deposit with the plaintiffs, as Trus-
tees, certain negotiable notes re-
ceived in its business, as collateral
security, with authority to sell such
collateral securities or any portion
thereof at public or private sale at
the option of the Trustees: Held,
that a sale was not the only mode
in which the securities could be

rendered available. The power so
given was not exclusive of every
other authority. The Trustees had
a right to receive payment of such
collateral notes and to enforce pay-
ment by action. Nelson et al. v.
Wellington,
...178

3. Where promissory notes are
pledged as security, the transaction
ex vi termini imports authority to
collect. Superadding a power to
sell, which without express agree-
ment would not exist, does not take
away the right to receive and to
compel payment.....
...id

4. Where negotiable notes are by
express agreement pledged as col-
lateral security to secure the pay-
ment of money by the pledgor
which he agrees to pay, the pledgee
may sue in his own name on such
notes, although the indorsement
made thereon to carry the agree-
ment into effect is in terms "pay to
A. B." (the pledgee) "for account
of C. D." (the pledgor.) Such an
indorsement is not inconsistent with
the lien of the pledgee and the right
of the latter to collect the notes and
to apply them to the account of the
pledgor by discharging the debt they
were pledged to secure.
.id

5. Where a note is given to an In-
surance Company for the nominal
premium upon an open policy,
which policy was to attach to all
risks that might thereafter be in-
dorsed thereon and risks on which
the agreed premium amounted to
one-third of the note were so in-
dorsed, and afterwards another risk
at an agreed rate of premium on all
goods shipped by the maker by a
vessel named and for a specified
voyage, was indorsed on the policy,
the maker agreeing afterwards to
report the amount of the invoice;
such note is a note for valuable con-
sideration, and in the absence of
any evidence of the amount of the
shipment last mentioned the maker
is liable for the full amount of the
note.
...id

7. When it is proved that it is the
uniform practice of an Insurance
Company to transfer notes, negotia-
ted in its business, by an indorse-
ment in this form, "For the Com-
pany, A. B., President," such proof
is prima facie evidence of authority
in the President to indorse notes
held by the Company, by way of
transfer; and such indorsement is
sufficient to confer the title on one
who receives a note from the Com-
pany in good faith, and advances to
them money thereon. Scott et al.
v. Johnson,
..213

10. Where a promissory note, payable
to the order of the Atlas Mutual
Insurance Company, was transferred
and delivered to the plaintiffs as se-
curity for a debt due to them by the
Company, and the indorsement was
in form, "Pay... ... ... for account
of the Atlas Mutual Insurance Com-
pany, G. H. T., Secretary," the re-
strictive form of the indorsement
forms no obstacle to the plaintiffs'
recovery on the note against the
maker. The collection of the note,
and the application of it to the pay-
ment of the debt of the Company,
would be according to the right of
the plaintiffs, and it would be a
payment for account of the Com-
pany. Smith et al. v. Hall,....319

11. The owner of a promissory note

can maintain an action on it, under
the Code, in his own name against
the makers, although not so indorsed
that he can sue as indorsee by the