Hackett v. Connett
New York Court of Chancery
The object of the bill in this cause was to obtain the benefit of a set off. The Defendant,- Matthew W. Confieft, had hired premises of thé complainant, James H. Hackett, tinder a xvritten léase. In the month of October, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine, Connett filed a bill in this cotirt against Hackett, charging a breach of covenánt, and praying that the latter might bé prevented from collecting rent.
Read the full summary
The object of the bill in this cause was to obtain the benefit of a set off. The Defendant,- Matthew W. Confieft, had hired premises of thé complainant, James H. Hackett, tinder a xvritten léase. In the month of October, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine, Connett filed a bill in this cotirt against Hackett, charging a breach of covenánt, and praying that the latter might bé prevented from collecting rent. An injunction issued: but this was afterwards dissolved and on the seventh day of July, one thousand eight hundred and thirty the bill was dismissed with costs. These costs were…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor:
The defendants insist upon the result of the motion in the Superior Court as conclusive upon the complainant. The grounds of denying the motion there do not distinctly appear. As far as the views of the court at law have been ascertained, the merits were not passed upon. The judges considered it a case more proper for a chancery suit. They declined interfering, although they had the matter fully before them upon affidavits, and were competent, in the exercise of their equity powers over judgments in their own court, to determine the question. Still, whatever they may have…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Pond v. . HarwoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Hobbs v. DuffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Grant v. MunchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Keightley v. WallsIndiana Supreme Court · 1865
- Terney v. WilsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1883
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.