Donnelly v. Morris

The Superior Court of New York City

Donnelly v. Morris

36 N.Y. St. Rep. 78

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJanuary 5, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 78 (Donnelly v. Morris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donnelly v. Morris, 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 78 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff did not establish any equity upon the motion. The supposed equity was founded upon the application by defendant to the payment of the note of partnership assets, or the defendant’s breach of his agreement to apply those assets to the. payment of the note. Either contingency does not create an equity. All of it is that it is inconvenient to ascertain the facts and to go to Massachusetts to defend the action there, This is not ground of equitable interference.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

Sedgwick, Oh. J., Freedman and Ingraham, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff did not establish any equity upon the motion. The supposed equity was founded upon the application by defendant to the payment of the note of partnership assets, or the defendant’s breach of his agreement to apply those assets to the. payment of the note. Either contingency does not create an equity. All of it is that it is inconvenient to ascertain the facts and to go to Massachusetts to defend the action there, This is not ground of equitable interference.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

Sedgwick, Oh. J., Freedman and Ingraham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 N.Y. St. Rep. 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donnelly-v-morris-nysuperctnyc-1891.