Hull v. Thomas
New York Court of Chancery
Co-partnership suit for an account, after a dissolution by mutual consent. The complainant, with the defendants, John Thomas and Samuel K. Head, had been the partners of the firm. The bill alleged a sale of the stock in trade, by the defendants John Thomas and Samuel IC. Head, to the defendant, James G. Wilson, without the consent and in fraud of the rights of the complainant.
Read the full summary
Co-partnership suit for an account, after a dissolution by mutual consent. The complainant, with the defendants, John Thomas and Samuel K. Head, had been the partners of the firm. The bill alleged a sale of the stock in trade, by the defendants John Thomas and Samuel IC. Head, to the defendant, James G. Wilson, without the consent and in fraud of the rights of the complainant. On a notice of motion for an injunction and receiver, the court granted it as against the defendants Thomas and Head. They had received notes from Wilson for the sum of three thousand and nine hundred dollars ; and…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor :
The question is, whether the defendants are guilty of a contempt, in having known that an injunction was to issue and a receiver to be appointed, although the order was not entered or the process served.
In Osborne v. Tenant, 14 Ves. 136, a motion was made for an injunction, while the defendant and his attorney were in court; but they were absent when the order was pronounced. “Ifthese parties,” said the Lord Chancellor, “by their attendance in court were apprised that there was an order, that is sufficient; and I cannot attend to a distinction so thin, as that persons…
2Cited by20 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Stearns v. . MarrNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- People Ex Rel. Platt v. . RiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Richards v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1876
- State v. IrwinWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1887
- In re CaryDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1882
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.