Comstock v. Apthorpe

8 Cow. 386
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors·Decided September 15, 1826·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Woodworth, J., and Savage, Oh. J.,

delivered opinions, the result of which was, that the injunction should have been dissolved by the court of chancery, in which Sutherland, J., concurred.

Golden, Senator,

delivered an opinion, in which he supported the chancellor’s decision throughout.

On the question being put, the vote stood as follows:

For affirmance, Burt, Burrows, Golden, Cramer, Dudley, Earll, Ellsworth, Gardiner, Greenly, Keyes, Lefferts, Lynde, Mallory, M’Miehael and Wright, Senators.

For afflrn>i anee 16.

[386-1]*386-1For reversal, in respect to the refusal to dissolve the in junction by the court of chancery, Bowman, Bray ton, Haight, McIntyre, Morgan, Bedfield, Wilkeson, Wooster, Senators,- and Savage, .Oh. J., and Sutherland, and Wood-worth, Justices. -

reversal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Comstock v. Apthorpe, 8 Cow. 386 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1826).

8 Cow. 386 (Comstock v. Apthorpe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Richards v. Charles
101 Misc. 128 (New York Supreme Court, 1917)
Kelsey v. Pfaudler Process Fermentation Co.
52 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 10 (New York Supreme Court, 1887)
Apperson & Co. v. Ford
23 Ark. 746 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1861)