Fanning v. Dunham

New York Court of Chancery

Fanning v. Dunham

4 Johns. Ch. 35, 1819 N.Y. LEXIS 180, 1819 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 21

DecidedApril 2, 1819

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Johns. Ch. 35 (Fanning v. Dunham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fanning v. Dunham, 4 Johns. Ch. 35, 1819 N.Y. LEXIS 180, 1819 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 21 (N.Y. 1819).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor

was strongly inclined to think the;

order of the 7th of December, 1813, erroneous; 1. Because it dissolved the injunction as to the mortgage only, when that, and all the other securities held by the defendant, stood on the same footing, and involved the same equity; and, 2. Because it imposed on the plaintiff as a condition of staying the dissolution, that he should bring into Court the money due on the mortgage, when the mortgage being given as a collateral security, with other securities, for many complicated dealings* the plaintiff could not well ascertain the sum. But under the circumstances of the case, he said, that the more regular and advisable course would be to discuss the merits of that order upon a rehearing, especially as it was granted in the time of his predecessor, though, perhaps, such an order might be discharged upon motion or petition merely. (Newland’s Pr. 68, 69.)

But upon the new facts stated in the supplemental bill, he was of opinion, that a fresh injunction might be awarded, even though the former injunction had been dissolved upon the merits. (Travers v. Stafford, 2 Ves. 19. Amb. 104. Lingham v. Toule, 1 Anst. 189.)

Injunction granted.

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

The Chancellor

was strongly inclined to think the;

order of the 7th of December, 1813, erroneous; 1. Because it dissolved the injunction as to the mortgage only, when that, and all the other securities held by the defendant, stood on the same footing, and involved the same equity; and, 2. Because it imposed on the plaintiff as a condition of staying the dissolution, that he should bring into Court the money due on the mortgage, when the mortgage being given as a collateral security, with other securities, for many complicated dealings* the plaintiff could not well ascertain the sum. But under the circumstances of the case, he said, that the more regular and advisable course would be to discuss the merits of that order upon a rehearing, especially as it was granted in the time of his predecessor, though, perhaps, such an order might be discharged upon motion or petition merely. (Newland’s Pr. 68, 69.)

But upon the new facts stated in the supplemental bill, he was of opinion, that a fresh injunction might be awarded, even though the former injunction had been dissolved upon the merits. (Travers v. Stafford, 2 Ves. 19. Amb. 104. Lingham v. Toule, 1 Anst. 189.)

Injunction granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Johns. Ch. 35, 1819 N.Y. LEXIS 180, 1819 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fanning-v-dunham-nychanct-1819.