Grandin v. Le Roy & Smyth
New York Court of Chancery
The bill in this case was filed to restrain the defendant Le Roy from proceeding at law to recover a draft drawn by I. Field on the defendant Smyth, and endorsed by the complainants. The draft was transferred to Le Roy in security for an antecedent debt of Field ; and for which Smyth was also liable.
Read the full summary
The bill in this case was filed to restrain the defendant Le Roy from proceeding at law to recover a draft drawn by I. Field on the defendant Smyth, and endorsed by the complainants. The draft was transferred to Le Roy in security for an antecedent debt of Field ; and for which Smyth was also liable. After a replication had been filed to the answers of the defendants, Le Roy applied to the vice chancellor of the seventh circuit for a dissolution of the injunction; but the application was denied with costs. From this decision Le Roy appealed to the chancellor.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The objection that the complainants had a perfect remedy at law, came too late. The defendant should have taken that objection either by demurrer to the bill, or by insisting on it in his answer as a bar. After a defendant has put in an answer, to a bill in chancery, submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court without objection, it is too late to insist that the complainant has a perfect remedy at law; unless this court is wholly incompetent to grant the relief sought by the bill. This point was expressly decided by Chancellor Jones, in Smith v. Haviland & Field, *510in…
2Cited by58 opinions
- Town of Mentz v. . CookNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Tyler v. MagwireSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Baron v. . KornNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Bowman v. Van KurenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Ostrander v. . WeberNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.