In re Reed

125 A.D. 884, 110 N.Y.S. 834, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2924

This text of 125 A.D. 884 (In re Reed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Reed, 125 A.D. 884, 110 N.Y.S. 834, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinion

Scott, J.:

The defendant appeals from an order denying his motion for a reference to ascertain the damages suffered by reason of an injunc[885]*885tion. An action was brought by one Lew Dockstader against the appellant. A preliminary injunction was granted restraining the appellant from doing certain things until “the hearing and decision of the Court upon this application.” The injunction order contained the usual directions to the appellant to show cause why the injunction should not be continued during the pendency of the action. Before the return day the appellant obtained ex parte a modification of the injunction. On argument the injunction as originally granted was continued pendente lite, but its operation was suspended pending an appeal. Upon appeal the order was reversed, (see Bockstader v. Reed, 121 App. Div. 846) and thereupon the plaintiff by an ex parte order discontinued the action. This was equivalent to a final determination that the plaintiff had not been entitled to the injunction, and the appellant thereupon became entitled to such damages as he had suffered by reason of it. It is true that he had not been in fact restrained from doing anything, but he was necessarily put to expense by reason of the issuance of the injunction and in the ultimately successful efforts to vacate it. These expenses certainly were damages suffered in consequence of the injunction. (Perlman v. Bernstein, 93 App. Div. 335; 179 N. Y. 531.)

It follows that the order appealed from must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Ingraham, Laughlin, Clarke and Houghton, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

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

Related

Perlman v. . Bernstein
71 N.E. 1137 (New York Court of Appeals, 1904)
Perlman v. Bernstein
93 A.D. 335 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
Dockstader v. Reed
121 A.D. 846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 A.D. 884, 110 N.Y.S. 834, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-reed-nyappdiv-1908.