Loveland v. Burnham
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application, on the part of the defendants, to dissolve, or modify, or set aside, the injunction which had been issued in this cause; on the ground of the insufficiency of the bond which had been taken by the injunction master, upon allowing such injunction.
Read the full summary
This was an application, on the part of the defendants, to dissolve, or modify, or set aside, the injunction which had been issued in this cause; on the ground of the insufficiency of the bond which had been taken by the injunction master, upon allowing such injunction. The object of the injunction was to restrain the defendants from selling, assigning, removing, or intermeddling with a schooner, alleged in the bill to belong to the complainant jointly with some of the defendants. The bond was in the penalty of $500 only; which sum, as one of the defendants swore, was entirely insufficient to…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
Although the 31st rule fixes the minimum of the penalty of a bond, to be taken by the officer allow*67ing an injunction out of court, it was intended that such officer should exercise a reasonable. discretion in fixing the amount of the security to be given; and that it should in all cases be sxtfficient to cover' the amount of damages the defendants might sustain, if it should eventually appear that the allegations in the bill were untrue, or that, for any other reason,' the complainant was not equitably entitled to an injunction. The officer allowing an injunction should always…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Laird v. MoonanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Brady v. WeeksNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Hayden v. KeithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Grant v. SchmidtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Burghen v. Erie RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.