Dodd v. Flavell

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Dodd v. Flavell

17 N.J. Eq. 255

DecidedMay 15, 1865

StatusPublished

This text of 17 N.J. Eq. 255 (Dodd v. Flavell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dodd v. Flavell, 17 N.J. Eq. 255 (N.J. Ct. App. 1865).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The propriety of requiring security from the complainant for such damages as the defendant [257]*257might sustain by reason of the injunction in this cause, was considered at the time of allowing the injunction. It did not appear to me then, to be a case in which security should be required.

Upon the case made hy the bill, the right of the complainant is clear, and the infraction of that right established. Under such circumstances, the fact that the injunction occasions a serious loss to the defendant, affords no just ground of complaint. He is deprived of the enjoyment of that which rightfully belongs to another.

The case, as made by the bill, is not essentially altered by the answer or proof of the defendant. Inasmuch, however, as the injunction deprives the defendant of the enjoyment of the property, and must necessarily prove greatly prejudicial to his interests if his claim should he established, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prosecute the case with- diligence.

If he fail to do so, and to bring the cause to hearing at the earliest opportunity, I will entertain a motion to dissolve the injunction. If any laches or want of diligence on the part of the complainant be shown, the injunction will he dissolved, or the complainant required to give the security demanded.

The motion must be denied without costs.

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

The Chancellor.

The propriety of requiring security from the complainant for such damages as the defendant [257]*257might sustain by reason of the injunction in this cause, was considered at the time of allowing the injunction. It did not appear to me then, to be a case in which security should be required.

Upon the case made hy the bill, the right of the complainant is clear, and the infraction of that right established. Under such circumstances, the fact that the injunction occasions a serious loss to the defendant, affords no just ground of complaint. He is deprived of the enjoyment of that which rightfully belongs to another.

The case, as made by the bill, is not essentially altered by the answer or proof of the defendant. Inasmuch, however, as the injunction deprives the defendant of the enjoyment of the property, and must necessarily prove greatly prejudicial to his interests if his claim should he established, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prosecute the case with- diligence.

If he fail to do so, and to bring the cause to hearing at the earliest opportunity, I will entertain a motion to dissolve the injunction. If any laches or want of diligence on the part of the complainant be shown, the injunction will he dissolved, or the complainant required to give the security demanded.

The motion must be denied without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.J. Eq. 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodd-v-flavell-njch-1865.