Drexel v. Berney

14 F. 268, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2747
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedNovember 17, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 F. 268 (Drexel v. Berney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Drexel v. Berney, 14 F. 268, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2747 (circtsdny 1882).

Opinion

Wallace, C. J.

The facts disclosed by the bill will avail the complainant as a defense at law to the action which is sought to be restrained by the bill. They do not show a defense of an equitable character distinctively. Even if formerly the complainant might have been entitled to a discovery, now that parties can be examined in the .same manner as other witnesses, at the instance of the adverse party, there is no necessity for such relief. Heater v. Erie R. Co. 9 Blatchf. 316; Markey v. Mut. Benefit L. Ins. Co. 3 Law & Eq. Rep. (1st Cir.) 647. The jurisdiction of a court of equity in this regard rests upon the inability of the common-law courts to obtain or compel the testimony sought, and when it can be obtained by the process of the latter it is an abuse of the powers of chancery to interfere. Brown v. Swan, 10 Pet. 497.

The demurrer is allowed.

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

Related

Brown v. McDonald
130 F. 964 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1904)
Wright v. Superior Court
73 P. 145 (California Supreme Court, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 F. 268, 1882 U.S. App. LEXIS 2747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drexel-v-berney-circtsdny-1882.