Fellows v. Fellows

New York Court of Chancery

Fellows v. Fellows

4 Johns. Ch. 25, 1819 N.Y. LEXIS 167, 1819 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 16

CourtNew York Court of Chancery

DecidedMarch 29, 1819

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 4 Johns. Ch. 25 (Fellows v. Fellows) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Johns. Ch. 25, 1819 N.Y. LEXIS 167, 1819 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fellows-v-fellows-nychanct-1819.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack