Corey v. Voorhies
New Jersey Court of Chancery
This bill, which was for an injunction, was fifed on the 26th •of August, 1837, and contained the usual prayer for a subpoena. A subpoena had been issued, returnable to the term of October, 1837, and returned by the sheriff of Essex, that the defendants could not be found in his county to be served with process, with the usual affidavit of non-residence. At the same term an order of publication was made.
Read the full summary
This bill, which was for an injunction, was fifed on the 26th •of August, 1837, and contained the usual prayer for a subpoena. A subpoena had been issued, returnable to the term of October, 1837, and returned by the sheriff of Essex, that the defendants could not be found in his county to be served with process, with the usual affidavit of non-residence. At the same term an order of publication was made. An injunction, pursuant to the prayer of the bill, had been issued and served upon the defendants in the state of New-York.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
R. Yan Arsdale, in behalf of the defendants, moved to dissolve the injunction issued in this cause, on three grounds : — 1. Because the defendants had never been served with a -subpoena : 2. Because the injunction was served -■out of this state and in the state of New-York; and 3. Because .-the original injunction was not shown to the party at the time of ■the service.
As to the first ground: — According to the English practice, a .subpoena is required in many cases to be served before the application for an injunction- can be made, and in fact will not then ■he allowed until…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In Re Education Association of Passaic, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1971
- Forstmann, C., Co. v. United Front, C.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926