Winfield v. Bacon
New York Supreme Court
MOTION, by the defendant Comstock, to dissolve an injunc-11 tion. Early in 1853, an action was brought in this court, by Eckerson &> Dominick, who were judgment creditors of Gottfried Yallmer, having an execution on their judgment returned unsatisfied, against Gottfried Yallmer, and John A. Yallmer and his wife. Gottfried Yallmer did not answer in the action, but John A. Yallmer appeared and answered, and the cause was referred.
Read the full summary
MOTION, by the defendant Comstock, to dissolve an injunc-11 tion. Early in 1853, an action was brought in this court, by Eckerson &> Dominick, who were judgment creditors of Gottfried Yallmer, having an execution on their judgment returned unsatisfied, against Gottfried Yallmer, and John A. Yallmer and his wife. Gottfried Yallmer did not answer in the action, but John A. Yallmer appeared and answered, and the cause was referred. The referee, after hearing the testimony, made his report, finding that Eckerson & Dimick were such judgment and execution creditors of Gottfried Yallmer. That…
1Opinion of the CourtBirdseye, J.
It is doubtless true, as contended for the defendant Comstock, that he is the officer of the court; and generally, an officer of the court who has obtained authority from it to sue, is not only authorized, but bound to proceed with his action, and is not to be restrained by injunction out of another court, or by making him a party to a new action, and obtaining an injunction against him. The proper method of restraining such an officer when engaged in the discharge of his official trust, is by application to the court whose officer he is, for instructions. (See Van Rensselaer v. Emery, 9 How.…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Savage v. . AllenNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Allis v. HallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1904
- Kelly v. HurtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- McDonald v. ChristieNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- Reeve v. JacksonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.