Moat v. Holbein
New York Court of Chancery
The bill (which was sworn to) contained no prayer for subpoena. An injunction had been issued, under the allocatur of the master; and, served. The writ of injunction was loose in its terms.
Read the full summary
The bill (which was sworn to) contained no prayer for subpoena. An injunction had been issued, under the allocatur of the master; and, served. The writ of injunction was loose in its terms. IMirected the defendant to “ desist and retrain from selling, removing or disposing of any of the said partnership property or from collecting the partnership debts or other moniesbut contained no reference whatever to any particular firm or co-partnership business, j After service of the injunction, the complainant’s solicitor entered an ex parte order allowing his client to amend by adding to the bill a…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice Chancellor:
While an injunction is in operation, a party ought to respect it, even though the same may have been improperly issued: more particularly if it be connected with strong equitable circumstances. The case of Partington v. Booth, 3. Meriv. 148. is in point.
But I am strongly inclined to say, that no motion made after the dissolution of such an injunction for an attachment, on the ground of an infringement of it while in force, can be sustained.
There would be another ground for refusing the present application, even if what I have said were not sufficient. The injunction is not…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Gallagher v. . NicholsNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Langworthy v. McKelveySupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- Howard S. Tierney, Inc. v. JamesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
- State v. LaveryOregon Supreme Court · 1897
- Schell v. Erie RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1868
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.