Solomon v. Chesley
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Debt, on the bond of the defendants given to indemnify Mohr, Solomon & Mohr against loss from an injunction issued against them, under the 36th rule in chancery. The plaintiff, as surviving partner of Mohr, Solomon & Mohr, recovered judgment against Chesley, and took execution upon it. Chesley, charging that the judgment was obtained by fraud, filed a bill in equity to vacate it and restrain its collection, and, upon filing the bond in suit, procured a temporary injunction.
Read the full summary
Debt, on the bond of the defendants given to indemnify Mohr, Solomon & Mohr against loss from an injunction issued against them, under the 36th rule in chancery. The plaintiff, as surviving partner of Mohr, Solomon & Mohr, recovered judgment against Chesley, and took execution upon it. Chesley, charging that the judgment was obtained by fraud, filed a bill in equity to vacate it and restrain its collection, and, upon filing the bond in suit, procured a temporary injunction. The bill was tried, and failed. Subsequently, on review, the original suit at law was tried, and the judgment reversed.…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The equity proceeding, instituted to vacate and enjoin the judgment obtained in the first suit of Solomon v. Chesley, failed, and left that judgment just where the proceeding found it. The bond was given to indemnify tbe defendant in that proceeding in case it was determined in his favor, as it eventually was. The equity suit was independent of the action of review, and did not aid in showing the first judgment to be erroneous. The result made it manifest that it was a groundless proceeding, and the right of the prevailing party to the cost of defending against it was not affected by the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1928
- Carpenter v. Fisher A.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1896