Fellows v. Fellows

4 Johns. Ch. 25, 1819 N.Y. LEXIS 167, 1819 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 16
New York Court of Chancery·Decided March 29, 1819·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The doctrine in the case cited, is correct and applicable. “ I find,” said Lord Eldon, “ the Court has adhered very closely to the principle, that you cannot have an injunction, except against a party to the suit. Upon a review of all the cases, I think the practice of granting an injunction against a creditor, who is not a party, is wrong. The Court has no right to grant an injunction against a person whom they have not brought, or attempted to bring, before the Court, by subpoena. I have no conception, that it is competent to this Court to hold a man bound by an injunction, who is not a party in the cause, for the purpose of the cause.” I shall, accordingly, dissolve the injunction as against those persons who were not made parties to the suit. A purchaser was restrained, in the case of Green v. Lowes, (3 Bro. 217.) from paying [26]*26the purchase money, on a bill by the creditors of the vendor, but the purchaser was made a party.

• Order accordingly.

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

Fellows v. Fellows, 4 Johns. Ch. 25, 1819 N.Y. LEXIS 167, 1819 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 16 (N.Y. 1819).

4 Johns. Ch. 25 (Fellows v. Fellows) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Havens v. James
76 F.4th 103 (Second Circuit, 2023)
Dixon v. Talerico
217 A.D. 191 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1926)
In re Reese
98 F. 984 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kansas, 1900)
In re Marter
16 F. Cas. 857 (E.D. Michigan, 1871)