Legal Opinion

Innes v. Lansing

New York Court of Chancery

Decided May 27, 1839PublishedCited by 64 opinions

This was an application on the part of the Lansings, two of the defendants, to stay all further proceedings in this suit, and for a dissolution of the injunction which had been issued therein. The defendants, in March, 1838, entered into a limited copartnership, as wine merchants in the city of New-York, under the firm of Lansing & Co., in which firm the two Lansings were the general partners and the defendant Dakin was the special partner.

Read the full summary

This was an application on the part of the Lansings, two of the defendants, to stay all further proceedings in this suit, and for a dissolution of the injunction which had been issued therein. The defendants, in March, 1838, entered into a limited copartnership, as wine merchants in the city of New-York, under the firm of Lansing & Co., in which firm the two Lansings were the general partners and the defendant Dakin was the special partner. Previous to the filing of this bill the firm, as well as the acting or general partners, became insolvent. The complainant thereupon commenced this suit,…

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

The defendants are premature in their application to stay the proceedings in this suit, as there has as yet been no decree in the other cause, for the benefit of all the creditors of the firm, under which this complainant could come in and prove his debt. And until such decree *585has been obtained he is not authorized to interfere with that suit. In cases of this kind it is competent for the complainant to settle with the defendants, and to withdraw his suit, without the consent of the other creditors, at any time before decree. And the defendants themselves may claim the right to…

2Cited by64 opinions

  1. Brinckerhoff v. . BostwickNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
  2. Hirshfeld v. . FitzgeraldNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
  3. Belmont v. Erie Railway Co.New York Supreme Court · 1869
  4. Schuehle v. . ReimanNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
  5. Lindsay v. AllenTennessee Supreme Court · 1904

59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API