Shearman v. Hart
New York Court of Common Pleas
Motion for an injunction. The plaintiff, James A. Shearman, formed a partnership in the lithographic business with the defendant, Charles Hart, on March 12, 1861, which was dissolved by consent on July 2, 1862. The partnership articles provided that neither partner should “ continue in business in the building occupied by the firm, nor within one block thereof, for the space of six months after the dissolution of the firm, without the consent of the other.”
Read the full summary
Motion for an injunction. The plaintiff, James A. Shearman, formed a partnership in the lithographic business with the defendant, Charles Hart, on March 12, 1861, which was dissolved by consent on July 2, 1862. The partnership articles provided that neither partner should “ continue in business in the building occupied by the firm, nor within one block thereof, for the space of six months after the dissolution of the firm, without the consent of the other.” In order to finish up the work of the firm, both partners remained on the premises for about three weeks after the dissolution, without…
1Opinion of the Court
Hilton, J. (orally).
Where the opponent of a motion admits the material facts stated in the moving papers, but relies upon new matter in avoidance, the moving party may put in affidavits in denial of such matter, but cannot himself set up new matter. The first affidavit must, therefore, be admitted, and the second -excluded.
The motion was then argued upon the merits.
III. The plaintiff is entitled to this injunction, even though the defendant had not violated the agreement. A well-founded apprehension of mischief is sufficient ground for an injunction. (Story's .Eq. Jur., § 862.) IY. It is not…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Robinson v. . StewartNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Dunlop v. . GregoryNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Corporation of New York v. MapesNew York Court of Chancery · 1822
- Woods v. MorrellNew York Court of Chancery · 1814
- New York Printing & Dying Establishment v. FitchNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hodge v. City of BuffaloSuperior Court of Buffalo · 1874