Hovey v. . the Rubber-Tip Pencil Co.

50 N.Y. 335, 1872 N.Y. LEXIS 425
New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 19, 1872·Published·Cited by 19 cases

Opinion

Church, Oh. J.

No motion was made to dissolve the injunction, nor does it appear that any expenses were incurred in consequence of it. The expenses proved were the expenses and counsel fees in the management and preparation of the case for trial, and the trial of the same, and no evidence was produced to show that any part of the sum was expended by reason of the temporary injunction, nor but that the same amount would have been incurred if no temporary injunction had been issued.

The principles laid down at the General and Special Term accord with the recent decision of this court in Andrews v. The Glenville Woolen Company (ante, p. 282), that, in order to recover as damages counsel fees, or any part of them, for the trial of an action in which a temporary injunction was issued, it must appear in some way that such expenses were incurred by reason of such injunction. In that case a motion had been *337 made to dissolve the injunction, which was denied, upon the ground that as the motion involved the whole merits of the action, which was brought to secure a permanent injunction, it was more appropriate that it should be determined upon a trial. The defendant was therefore compelled to go to trial to secure a decision that the party was not entitled to the injunction in order to recover the damages which he had sustained in endeavoring to procure a dissolution, and this court held that a counsel fee for the trial of the action was proper. The facts proved in this case do not bring it within the principle decided in that case. A party is entitled to damages, not only for all expenses which he has incurred for fees and for legal services in removing the temporary injunction, hut also any damages to his business, or otherwise necessarily resulting from it.

As none was proved in this case the order must be affirmed.

All concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Hovey v. . the Rubber-Tip Pencil Co., 50 N.Y. 335, 1872 N.Y. LEXIS 425 (N.Y. 1872).

50 N.Y. 335 (Hovey v. . the Rubber-Tip Pencil Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cross Properties, Inc. v. Brook Realty Co.
76 A.D.2d 445 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Eisen v. Post
15 Misc. 2d 59 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Williams v. Hallgren
31 N.W.2d 737 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1948)
Elsman v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co.
146 Misc. 631 (New York Supreme Court, 1933)
Olsen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
128 N.E. 908 (New York Court of Appeals, 1920)
Maltz v. Westchester County Brewing Co.
167 A.D. 95 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Brooks v. Racich Asbestos Manufacturing Co.
137 A.D. 280 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)
Madison v. Brower
81 A.D. 116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
Jameson v. Bartlett
88 N.W. 860 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1902)
Edmison v. Sioux Falls Water Co.
85 N.W. 1016 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1901)
Ten Eyck v. Sayers
27 N.Y.S. 588 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Jackson v. Millspaugh
100 Ala. 285 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1893)
Gerard v. Gateau
15 Ill. App. 520 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1884)
Crounse v. Syracuse, Chenango & New York Railroad
39 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 497 (New York Supreme Court, 1884)
Hill v. Thomas
19 S.C. 230 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1883)
Newton v. Russell
31 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 40 (New York Supreme Court, 1881)
Hotchkiss v. Platt
15 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 46 (New York Supreme Court, 1876)
Troxell v. Haynes
16 Abb. Pr. 1 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1874)