Fargo v. New York & New England Railroad
New York Supreme Court
Motion for an injunction pendente lite.
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
The rule is that an injunction in aid of specific performance, being merely ancillary to the main purpose of the bill, is dependent upon that and must stand or fall with the bill. High Inj. (3d ed.) §§ 1109,1120. If, therefore upon the case as made out by the complaint, the plaintiff is not entitled to a specific performance of the contract under consideration, he cannot have an injunction. Allen v. Burke, 2 Md. 534; Peto v. Brighton R. Co., 1 H. & N. 468; Baldwin v. Society, 9 Sim. 393.
This rule is especially stringent where a mandatory injunction is asked. Such injunctions are seldom…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Marble Co. v. RipleySupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Blanchard v. Detroit, Lansing & Lake Michigan RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- McHenry v. . JewettNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Beck v. . AllisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Cincinnati & Chicago Railroad v. WashburnIndiana Supreme Court · 1865
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Standard Fashion Co. v. . Siegel-Cooper Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1898
- General Electric Co. v. International Union United Automobile, Aircraft, & Agricultural Implement WorkersOhio Court of Appeals · 1952
- Standard Fashion Co. v. Siegel-Cooper Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Harley v. Sanitary DistrictAppellate Court of Illinois · 1894
- Moore v. TuohyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.