Vliet v. Lowmason
New Jersey Court of Chancery
The complainant filed his bill in this cause to obtain an injunction to restrain proceedings at law by Thomas Lowmason, one of the defendants, against the complainant and George K. Lowmason, the other defendant, for the recovery of a promissory note given by them to the said Thomas Lowmason, and which it was insisted in the bill that the payee was not entitled in equity to recover against the complainant.
Read the full summary
The complainant filed his bill in this cause to obtain an injunction to restrain proceedings at law by Thomas Lowmason, one of the defendants, against the complainant and George K. Lowmason, the other defendant, for the recovery of a promissory note given by them to the said Thomas Lowmason, and which it was insisted in the bill that the payee was not entitled in equity to recover against the complainant. The defendant Thomas Lowmason, by his answer, denied the whole equity of the bill. No answer was filed by George K. Lowmason, the other defendant. The cause was heard upon motion to dissolve…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
Thomas Lowmason, whose rights°alone are affected by the injunction, has fully answered, denying the equity of the complainant’s bill. The other defendant is one of the makers of the note upon which the action is brought, to restrain which the injunction issued. He can have no interest in answering the bill, nor can his answer avail the complainant. The general rule is, that where there are several defendants, all must answer before the injunction will be dissolved ; but to this there are exceptions. Where the defendant against whom the *405gravamen of the charge rests has fully…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Noble v. WilsonNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
- Wakeman v. GillespyNew York Court of Chancery · 1835