Legal Opinion

Hoyt v. Gelston

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1816PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Per curiam

There was no irregularity in proceeding to trial in this cause, by reason of the injunction heretofore issued by a master. This injunction had been dissolved by the chancellor. Where theye is an existing operative injunction, we should think proper, as a general rule, to notice it, for the pur-, pose of promoting the ends of justice,'and of preserving harmony between the two courts, although the injunction operates upon the parties only. By the present rules in the court of chancery, certain masters, designated by the chancellor, are authorized to grant injunctions, and which are binding…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. Williams v. PounsTexas Supreme Court · 1877
  2. Hicks v. MichaelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  3. Houtchens v. MercerTexas Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Ætna Life Insurance v. McCormickWisconsin Supreme Court · 1866
  5. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway Co. v. SwinneyIndiana Supreme Court · 1884

9 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