New-York Dry Dock Co. v. American Life Insurance & Trust Co.
New York Court of Chancery
The bill, in this case, was filed to set aside pertain securities, which were illegal and void at law, as well as in equity, if the allegations in the complainant’s bill were correct. After the filing of the bill here, the defendant instituted a suit at law upon the. securities.
Read the full summary
The bill, in this case, was filed to set aside pertain securities, which were illegal and void at law, as well as in equity, if the allegations in the complainant’s bill were correct. After the filing of the bill here, the defendant instituted a suit at law upon the. securities. And the complainant now applied for an injunction; to restrain the proceedings in that suit; the defendants having answered the bill without insisting, as an objection to the juris- ' diction of this court, that the complainant’s remedy was perfect at law.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor
decided, that where the complainant had a perfect defence at law, to a suit instituted against him there, he was not entitled to the special interference of this court, by injunction, to restrain the proceeding there, previous to a decree in the suit instituted in this court. He said the mere neglect of the defendants here to object to the jurisdiction of the court, did not entitle the complainant fo a preliminary injunction to .restrain the proceeding at law; and thus to make it the duty of this court *385to assume the exclusive jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit; but…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Rogers v. CrossWisconsin Supreme Court · 1850
- Schneider v. FooteU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1886
- Caplin v. Penn Mutual Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918
- Fuller v. CadwellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1863
- Perault v. RandNew York Supreme Court · 1877