Fullan v. Hooper
66 How. Pr. 75
This text of 66 How. Pr. 75 (Fullan v. Hooper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Fullan v. Hooper, 66 How. Pr. 75 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1883).
Opinion
This is a motion to set aside an injunction granted in this action to restrain the defendant from enforcing a judgment which this defendant obtained against the plaintiff in 1871. The motion must be granted upon three grounds :
First. The plaintiff has a remedy at law (Savage agt. Allen, 54 N. Y., 458, and the cases there cited). The defect here complained of is that the summons was not served in the action in which the judgment was obtained. If such was the case the judgment would be set aside upon motion. That is perhaps the reason that no case is found when an action was brought in equity to set aside such judgment with an injunction to restrain its enforcement.
Second. The whole equity of the complaint is not only denied, but its want of equity is established by a preponderance of proof (40 How. Pr., 233).
Third. The undertaking given by the plaintiff in procuring the injunction is not sufficient for that purpose (Secs. 613 and 812, Code of Civil Procedure).
Motion to vacate injunction granted, with ten dollars costs of motion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Savage v. . Allen
54 N.Y. 458 (New York Court of Appeals, 1873)
Brown v. Ashbough
40 How. Pr. 226 (New York Supreme Court, 1870)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
66 How. Pr. 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fullan-v-hooper-nysupct-1883.