Seebor v. Hess
New York Court of Chancery
The bill in this cause was filed against G. H. Hess and wife and twenty other defendants, and an injunction was issued thereon to stay the proceedings in an ejectment suit brought by all the defendants against the complainant. It appeared that a copy of the injunction was served on the defendant G. H. Hess, in November, 1884, and the subpoena was served upon him a short time afterwards.
Read the full summary
The bill in this cause was filed against G. H. Hess and wife and twenty other defendants, and an injunction was issued thereon to stay the proceedings in an ejectment suit brought by all the defendants against the complainant. It appeared that a copy of the injunction was served on the defendant G. H. Hess, in November, 1884, and the subpoena was served upon him a short time afterwards. Some time after the service of the subpoena,'the defendants, upon an affidavit of G-. H. Hess, stating these facts, and also that he had been informed by some of the other defendants that the injunction and…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
There was a technical irregularity in serving the injunction without serving the defendant with a subpoena to appear and answer. (4 Paige's Rep. 439.) But it was too late to give notice of an application to dissolve the injunction on that ground, after the subpoena had been actually served on the same defendant. The neglect of the complainant to serve the injunction and subposua, immediately upon the other twenty defendants, living in different parts of the state, formed no ground for dissolving or setting aside the injunction. Those upon whom it is served may appear and put in…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Sweatt v. FavilleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
- Shonk v. KnightWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1878
- Noble v. WilsonNew York Court of Chancery · 1828
- Scarlett v. HicksSupreme Court of Florida · 1869
- Schermerhorn v. MerrillNew York Supreme Court · 1847
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.