Pickersgill v. Lahens
Supreme Court of the United States
A statute of the State of New York thus enacts: “ No injunction shall be issued to stay the trial of any personal action at issue in any court of law until the party applying therefor shall execute a bond; with one or more sufficient sureties, to the plaintiff in such action at law, in such sum as the chancellor or master allowing the injunction shall direct, conditioned for the payment to the said plaintiff, and his legal representatives, of all moneys which may be…
Read the full summary
A statute of the State of New York thus enacts: “ No injunction shall be issued to stay the trial of any personal action at issue in any court of law until the party applying therefor shall execute a bond; with one or more sufficient sureties, to the plaintiff in such action at law, in such sum as the chancellor or master allowing the injunction shall direct, conditioned for the payment to the said plaintiff, and his legal representatives, of all moneys which may be recovered by such plaintiff or his legal representatives,... in such action at law, for debt or damage, and for costs therein.”…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Dayis
It is very clear that the estate of Lafarge is discharged at law from the payment of the obligation in controversy, on the familiar principle that if one of two joint obligors die the debt is extinguished against his representative, and the surviving obligor is alone chargeable. It is equally clear that in this class of cases, where the remedy at law is gone, as a general rule a court of equity will not afford relief, for it is not a principle of equity that every joint covenant shall be treated as if it were joint and several. The court will not vary the legal effect of the instrument by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hunt v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Kennedy v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
3Cited by19 opinions
- Glasscock v. HamiltonTexas Supreme Court · 1884
- Tyler Min. Co. v. Last Chance Min. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1898
- Portland Trust Co. v. HavelyOregon Supreme Court · 1899
- State ex rel. State Savings Bank v. BarretMontana Supreme Court · 1901
- Wilson v. FridenbergSupreme Court of Florida · 1886
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.