Ely v. Lowenstein
New York Supreme Court
Motion to vacate an injunction. This was another motion in the same action as the motion last above reported; and was heard at the same time. The defendant, Samuel J. Crooks, Esq., of New York, an attorney of the court, was made a party for the purpose of the injunction.
Read the full summary
Motion to vacate an injunction. This was another motion in the same action as the motion last above reported; and was heard at the same time. The defendant, Samuel J. Crooks, Esq., of New York, an attorney of the court, was made a party for the purpose of the injunction. The order of injunction which had been granted enjoined and restrained the defendants and each of them “from all further attempt to prosecute a certain action now pending in the supreme court of the State of New York in favor of John Steigler against Alfred Ely, in which the defendant, Samuel J. Crooks, is the plaintiff’s…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
The note or due bill, the prosecution and collection of which the plaintiff seeks in this manner to prevent, was, as appears by the complaint and answers in the action, given by the plaintiff to the de*39fendant Steigler as part of the purchase price of certain real estate in the city of New York, and in part performance of the contract, wherein the defendant Steigler was vendor and the plaintiff purchaser.
It is quite apparent, that the most direct and effectual mode of defeating the collection of that note is, and must be, by defending the action brought by the payee to enforce it. The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Dyckman & McChain v. KernochanNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
- Grant v. QuickThe Superior Court of New York City · 1852
- Schell v. Erie RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1868
- Dederick v. HoysradtNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Smith v. American Life Insurance & Trust Co.New York Court of Chancery · 1840
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.