Troxell v. Haynes
New York Court of Common Pleas
William L. Troxell sued John 0. Haynes, William B. Fiske, Richard N. Wen man, Frank J. Tinkham, and William H. Donaldson, and on the commencement of this action an ex-parte injunction was granted upon an undertaking in the usual form. On motion of the defendants this injunction was dissolved as to all of the defendants except Haynes.
Read the full summary
William L. Troxell sued John 0. Haynes, William B. Fiske, Richard N. Wen man, Frank J. Tinkham, and William H. Donaldson, and on the commencement of this action an ex-parte injunction was granted upon an undertaking in the usual form. On motion of the defendants this injunction was dissolved as to all of the defendants except Haynes. At the trial, on the merits, the complaint was dismissed as to all defendants, and subsequently judgment was entered dissolving the injunction as to all of the defendants, with three hundred and forty-seven dollars and ninety-four cents costs and allowance. An…
1Opinion of the Court
Daly, Ch. J.
There was no authority to enter up, a judgment upon the referee’s report of the damages which the defendants had sustained by reason of the injunction; nor, when the referee’s report is confirmed, is there anything in section 222 of the Code authorizing the entry of a judgment for the amount against the sureties. The liability of the sureties in this undertaking is to pay such damages, not exceeding five hundred dollars, as the defendants may sustain by reason of the injunction, such damages to be ascertained by a reference, or otherwise, as the court may direct. The sureties, by…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Methodist Churches of New York v. . BarkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Hovey v. . the Rubber-Tip Pencil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Corcoran v. . JudsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Coates v. CoatesThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
- Patterson v. BloomerNew York Supreme Court · 1868
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.