Laurie v. Laurie
New York Court of Chancery
The bill in this cause was filed for a separation, on account of the alleged cruel usage of the complainant by her husband. Upon filing the bill/an exparte injunction had been allowed, by an injunction master, to restrain the defendant from annoying, following, harming, taking possession of, or offering any personal violence to, his wife or his children.- On the coming in of the answer, an application was made to dissolve the injunction.
Read the full summary
The bill in this cause was filed for a separation, on account of the alleged cruel usage of the complainant by her husband. Upon filing the bill/an exparte injunction had been allowed, by an injunction master, to restrain the defendant from annoying, following, harming, taking possession of, or offering any personal violence to, his wife or his children.- On the coming in of the answer, an application was made to dissolve the injunction. A cross application was also made, by the complainant, for an attachment against the defendant for an alleged violation of the injunction ; and a further…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
It is evident from the language of the injunction in this case that it was allowed without due consideration. ‘As the defendant is bound to obey the process of the court at his peril, the language of the injunction should in all cases be so clear and explicit that an unlearned man can understand its meaning, without the necessity of employing counsel to advise him what he has a right to do to save him from subjecting himself to punishment for a breach of the injunction. And the language of the writ should at the same time be so restricted as not to deprive him of any rights…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mayeri v. MayeriNew York Supreme Court · 1960
- Little v. GallusAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- Niles v. United States Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1903