Edwards v. Bodine
New York Court of Chancery
In this suit, the injunction master, on allowing an injunction to restrain the defendants from proceeding to sell mortgaged premises under a decree of foreclosure, took from the complainants a bond with sureties, conditioned to pay to the Partes enjoined such damages as they might, sustain by reason of the injunction (according to the provisions of the 31st rule.) The injunction not being sustained, the defendants obtained an order, referring it to a master to ascertain…
Read the full summary
In this suit, the injunction master, on allowing an injunction to restrain the defendants from proceeding to sell mortgaged premises under a decree of foreclosure, took from the complainants a bond with sureties, conditioned to pay to the Partes enjoined such damages as they might, sustain by reason of the injunction (according to the provisions of the 31st rule.) The injunction not being sustained, the defendants obtained an order, referring it to a master to ascertain their damages by reason of the injunction. The master, in addition to the loss of interest on the amount for which the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor :
The 31st rule, requiring a bond on the granting of an injunction was adopted in consequence of the occurrence of such cases as The Cayuga Bridge Co. v. Magee, 2 Paige’s C. R. 116, and Sullivan v. Judah, 4 Ib. 444. It is to protect where the injunction suspends the prosecution of some work or keeps the party en*293joined out of the possession or restrains him from the enjoyment of property to which he is entitled and the temporary deprivation of which might cause him some actual loss or injury.
In this view of the object of the rule and of the bond, the defendants, in the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wilde v. Alfred & Louis JoelThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
- Cook v. ChapmanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1886
- Fisk v. Union Pacific RailroadDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1871