Krone v. Krone

Weisel, J., delivered the opinion of this Court. The appeal in this case is from an order refusing an injunction. Before the order was filed or the application considered, though after it was 'Set down for 'a hearing, the defendant, now appellee, had filed her answer to the bill. And afterwards, and before the actual hearing of the case, the complainant filed a suggestion that the prayer for the injunction, according to the rule and practice of equity, should be heard and decided exclusively upon consideration of the bill and exhibit, and that it was not competent for the Court to read or consider the answer or any part of it, and so prayed the Court to hear and decide the application for the injunction without reference to the answer or anything therein contained.

Whether the Court heeded this suggestion does not distinctly appear from the order of refusal. But it must be assumed that the answer was considered and permitted to have its proper effect, inasmuch as it was the duty of the Court to regard it. Hall vs. McPherson, 3 Bland, 532; Bell vs. Purvis et al., 15 Md. Rep., 22 . The Code, Article 5, sec. 25, has not changed this rule of practice.

By that section, as construed in Steigerwald vs. Winans et al., 17 Md. Rep., 65 , 66, and very recently in the case of Rogers and others vs. Thompson and others, decided at the present term, if an answer has been filed before the application has been heard and disposed of, no appeal lies from an order refusing the injunction. Such a proceeding is not within the remedy provided by that section. So a