Fulton Bank v. New York & Sharon Canal Co.
New York Court of Chancery
This was a motion to dissolve an injunction upon bill and answer. Brown and Reed, two former officers of the New York and Sharon Canal Company, were made defendants for the sake of discovery merely.
Read the full summary
This was a motion to dissolve an injunction upon bill and answer. Brown and Reed, two former officers of the New York and Sharon Canal Company, were made defendants for the sake of discovery merely. The canal company put in their answer under the corporate seal; and the present secretary, who was not an officer of the company at the time of the transactions which were the foundation of the injunction, swore that the matters stated in the answer relating to his acts and deeds were true, and so far as related to the acts and deeds of other persons, he believed them to be true. The president,…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :—The case of a corporation defendant is an anomaly in the practice in relation to the dissolution of an injunction. In most cases the injunction is dissolved as a matter of course, if the answer is perfect, and denies all the equity of the bill in the points upon which the injunction rests. It is not, however, a matter of course to dissolve the injunction where the defendant acts in a representative character, and founds his denial of the equity of the bill upon information and belief only. Corporations answer under their seal and without oath. They are therefore at liberty…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Miller v. Town of AracomaWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1888
- Griffin v. State BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Chase v. . VanderbiltNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Niehaus & Co. v. CookeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1901
- Poor v. CarletonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1837
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.