GOODYEAB DENTAL TULOANITB 00. V. »OLSOM. 611 �repeaied. That section authorizes writs of injunction to be granted by any justice of the supreme court, and by any judge of the circuit court, in cases where they might be granted by the courts themselves, respectively, with certain limita- tions as to the place where the justice of the supreme court shall hear the application. Then follows the part referred to by the petitioner : "And an injunction shall not be issued by a district judge, as one of the judges of a circuit court, in any case ■where a party has had a reasonable time to apply to the circuit court for the writ; nor shall any injunction, so issued by a district judge, continue longer than to the circuit court next ensuing, unless so ordered by the circuit court." �At the present time the district judge has fuU and unre- stricted power to hold the circuit court, (Eev. St. § 609,) and it is not easy to find a reason for restricting bis powers as a judge of the court in any particular. I am satisfied that thia section does not mean that the circuit court cannot issue the writ, when held by the district judge, as fully and freely in ail respects as when held by the circuit justice or judge, or by two justices. It refers to writs issued in vacation, and "the circuit court next ensuing" shows this quite distinctly. �This part of section 719 is taken from the act of thirteenth February, 1807, (2 St. 418.) In 1842 a statute gave plenary power to the supreme court to make rules in equity, and by raie 55, which is still in force, that court reeognizes the equal power of both justices of the circuit court in this particular. Judge Conkling, in his Treatise, (3d Ed. p. 240, 5th Ed. p. 219,) points out that the rule reeognizes this equality, and is of opinion that it repeals the statute. He has no doubt that under the power given the supreme court to make rules, by the act above cited, they might repeal such a statute. It is to be observed that the law of 1842 did not contain the lim- itation which we find in the Eevised Statu tes, § 917, that the rules are to be "not inconsistent with any law of the United States." StUl, it is probable that this was implied. Instead, .therefore, of saying that the supreme court repeaied the law, ■we may say'that they construed it as not impairing the equal- ����
