Depeyster v. Graves
New York Court of Chancery
[ * 149 ] THE bill was filed the 27th of February, 1815, against Graves and four other defendants, for an account and set-off. *Graves, Armitage, and Sharp, three of the defendants, put in their answers on the 21st of September last, since which there had been no proceedings on the part of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
[ * 149 ] THE bill was filed the 27th of February, 1815, against Graves and four other defendants, for an account and set-off. *Graves, Armitage, and Sharp, three of the defendants, put in their answers on the 21st of September last, since which there had been no proceedings on the part of the plaintiff. Worrall fy Williamson, the other two defendants, have been, and still are, residents in England, and the plaintiff had taken no steps to compel them to appear, and answer, or to have the bill taken pro confesso against them. A motion was now made, on the bill, and the answer of the three…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
*149[ * 150 ]
*148The general rule is, that an injunction properly granted is not to be dissolved until the answer of all the defendants has come in. (Wyatt’s P. R. 234. But this rule has exceptions, and is subject to discretion and modification. If both the defendants were implicated in the same charge, I should require the answer of both, without some special reason to the contrary. If, however, the defendant on whom the real gravamen rested had fully answered the bill, this would probably be sufficient, and in many cases the injunction will be dissolved, as against the defendants who…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Carey v. StarrTexas Supreme Court · 1900
- Williams v. Chicago Exhibition Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1900
- McGahan v. Bank of RondoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Coleman ex rel. Smith v. Stearns Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Garner v. CuttingSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.