#### JAMES HARRISON v. WILLIAM CASEY and DANIEL CASEY.

June, 1836.

Upon the partial dissolution of an injunction, the defendant in equity may have an execution there, for the sum as to which the injunction is dissolved; ¡but if, instead of that, he sues at law upon the injunction bond, he cannot .afterwards, upon the total dissolution of the injunction, have an execution from the court of equity, his only remedy being upon his judgment at law.

In this case the plaintiff had obtained an injunction .■against a judgment which the defendant, William, had .against him at law. Upon the coming in of the answers, the injunction was dissolved as to three hundred dollars, part of the judgment enjoined, and the defendant, William, obtained the leave of the Court to put the injunction bond in suit at law; he did so, and recovered judgment for the penalty, to be discharged by the payment of three •hundred dollars, and the costs. The bill was retained as .an original, and was afterwards dismissed at the hearing, .on the merits. The counsel for the defendant, William, ¡now moved for judgment on the injunction bond, which was resisted by the other side.

Winston, for the plaintiff.

Pearson, for the defendant,

Ruffin, Chief Justice.

The Court refuses the motion. No reason is perceived why the defendant, in this Court, ■might not have obtained execution here against the plaintiff and his sureties for the sum for which the injunction was dissolved. The bond is an agreement to perform the orders and decrees of the Court, made in the cause from time to time, and may be regarded to be in the nature of a rule to that effect. But if the defendant did not choose .that method, but preferred that of an action at law— which was in his own election — this Court can no longer give a remedy on the bond. It is not here; and indeed is merged in the judgment at law; and all further proceedings must -be had on that judgment. That can be enforced only in the Court which rendered it.

Pee Ctjkiam. Motion refused.