Krom v. Hogan
New York Supreme Court
In this case an injunction was allowed on the complaint without notice, and served on the defendants in August last, by which they were commanded to desist from cutting or removing any timber or wood from the premises therein described. The plaintiff moved for an attachment against one of the defendants for disobeying the injunction—and the defendants moved to vacate the injunction. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Parker, Justice.
It is satisfactorily established by affidavits that the defendant, Henry Hogan, has been several times engaged in cutting and carrying away timber from the premises in controversy, since the service of the injunction. He seeks to protect himself against punishment, by showing that he acted under the authority, by the direction, and for the benefit of Cornelius Hogan, a third person, who is not a party to this suit, and who, he says, has become the owner of the premises by purchase, since the service of the injunction. These facts afford him no protection. So long as the order…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Roome v. WebbNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Evans v. Van HallNew York Court of Chancery · 1839
3Cited by1 opinion
- Michel v. O'BrienNew York Supreme Court · 1894