Ham v. Schuyler
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill was for specific performance of a parol contract to execute a lease for three lives. No discovery was prayed for. An action of ejectment was pending at law; and the bill prayed for an injunction, which was granted in 1814. An answer was not yet put in by the defendants.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
[ * 141 ]
The bill proceeds on the ground, that the plaintiffs have no defence at law, and no discovery *is sought to aid any such defence. The claim is purely equitable, and there is no good reason why the defendants should not be at liberty to proceed to trial and judgment at law. This appears to be the practice; and the Court, generally, imposes further terms to prevent trouble and delay, before an injunction is granted in ejectment cases, where no discovery is sought, and the title at law is admitted. (Hinde’s Ch. Practice, 585. 591.)
Motion granted.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hill v. BillingslyMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- Chadwell v. JordanCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1876
- Trousdale v. MaxwellTennessee Supreme Court · 1880