294 ANNUAL REGISTER, 



ISIS. 



sole and separate use. For this 

 u-as substituted 1 ,000/. a - year 

 after the denth of Lord Kennedy, 

 or in case any misfortune should 

 cause a separation. These were 

 the facts, according to the state- 

 ment of Mr. Innies. Since the 

 marriage of Lord and Lady Ken- 

 nedy, as scon as the latter at- 

 tained the age of 21, an action 

 was commenced by Lord Cassilis 

 in the court of session in Scot- 

 laml, the object of which Avas, in 

 the first place to obtain a con- 

 veyance from Mr. Innies, of 

 30,000/. in stock, which stood in 

 the Bank of England in his name ; 

 and in the next place, to compel 

 Mr, Innies, who was all along the 

 active guardian^ to give in an 

 account of his raanatTement of 

 the property during the minority 

 of the lady. As soon as these 

 proceedings were commenced, 

 Mr. Innies applied to the Court 

 of Chancery for an injunction to 

 restrain them, which injunction 

 was granted, upon ex j^-'^rte hear- 

 ing, 6 montlis ago. It was to 

 dissolve this injunction that the 

 present application was made. 



The application was supported 

 chiefly on the ground that it was 

 not competent to the court of 

 chancery hsre to restrain pro- 

 ceedings in the court of session 

 in Scotland. The court of session 

 was itself a court of equity; it 

 was independent of the jurisdic- 

 tion of any other court, save that 

 of the House of Lords. If the 

 court of chancery could issue an 

 injunction to restrain proceedings 

 in the coart of session, the court 

 of session would have an equal 

 right of issuing an interdict to 

 inhibit proceedings in the court 

 of chancery. Sucli an interposi- 



tion was expressly in violation too 

 of the act of Union. 



The application was resided on 

 the ground that the court pos- 

 sessed the jurisdiction, because 

 the Bank stock was in England. 

 The parties who made the con- 

 tract, so far'as it was made, were, 

 with the exception of Mr, Innies, 

 domicile subjects of England, and 

 the matter was negotiated in 

 England. The court of session 

 in Scotland could not make any 

 order by whiih the Bank of Eng- 

 land could be affected, and there- 

 fore that court was not competent 

 to take cognizance of the matter. 

 The merits of the case were then 

 gone into, in order to support 

 the injunction. Doubts were 

 suggested as to the terms of Lord 

 Cassilis's final propositions, and it 

 was therefore hoped, that if the 

 court could dissolve the injunc- 

 tion, it would at least direct an 

 inquiry to be made to ascertain 

 what were really the terms of the 

 final propositions. 



It was re-urged on the adverse 

 side, that the injunction was 

 originally obtained in order to 

 protect Innies from giving in his 

 accounts. 



The Lord Chancellor was of 

 opinion, that no principle was 

 furnished against the jurisdiction 

 of the court of chancery, because 

 the property in question could be 

 affected by its order alone. It 

 Mas, in its national character, 

 English projierty. The defend- 

 ants to the present bill were also 

 English domicile subjects. It 

 was the object of the suit in Scot- 

 land to compel Innies to give in 

 his accounts, and to convey to 

 Lord Kennedy the Bank stock. 

 The injunction was obtained on 



th^ 



