Parker v. Williams
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from the order of the vice chancellor of the seventh circuit, dissolving the injunction which had been previously granted therein, with costs. From the affidavits read before the vice chancellor, it appeared that the injunction, which had been granted ex parte upon the filing of the bill, was served on the defendant and his attorney on the 12th of November, 1833 ; but no subpoena to appear and answer had ever been served.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from the order of the vice chancellor of the seventh circuit, dissolving the injunction which had been previously granted therein, with costs. From the affidavits read before the vice chancellor, it appeared that the injunction, which had been granted ex parte upon the filing of the bill, was served on the defendant and his attorney on the 12th of November, 1833 ; but no subpoena to appear and answer had ever been served. The defendant voluntarily appeared, on the sixteenth of December, and demanded" a copy of the bill; which was afterwards served on him, by the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
There was a technical irregularity in this case, in serving the defendant with the injunction without taking out and serving him, at the same time, with a subpee*440na to appear and answer. (Patrick v. Harrison, 3 Bro. C. C. 476. Attorney General v. Nichol, 16 Ves. 338.) And if the application had been made the first opportunity, the injunction might have been dissqlved on that ground. But this irregularity was waived by the defendant voluntarily appearing and putting in his answer. It was therefore too late for him to make the objection, after such a lapse of time; and after those…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Nichols v. NicholsNew York Supreme Court · 1833
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ex parte SayreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1891
- District Township of Lodomillo v. District Township of CassSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Lash v. McCormickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869
- Hutchins v. MunnDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1906