New-York Dry Dock Co. v. American Life Insurance & Trust Co.

11 Paige Ch. 384, 1844 N.Y. LEXIS 215
New York Court of Chancery·Decided December 5, 1844·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

The Chancellor

decided, that where the complainant had a perfect defence at law, to a suit instituted against him there, he was not entitled to the special interference of this court, by injunction, to restrain the proceeding there, previous to a decree in the suit instituted in this court. He said the mere neglect of the defendants here to object to the jurisdiction of the court, did not entitle the complainant fo a preliminary injunction to .restrain the proceeding at law; and thus to make it the duty of this court [385]*385to assume the exclusive jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit; but that when a final decree should have been made here, the court, by injunction, might restrain any proceedings at law which were inconsistent with the rights of the parties as established by such decree, and that a clause to that effect might be inserted in the final decree.

Motion for injunction denied.

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

New-York Dry Dock Co. v. American Life Insurance & Trust Co., 11 Paige Ch. 384, 1844 N.Y. LEXIS 215 (N.Y. 1844).

11 Paige Ch. 384 (New-York Dry Dock Co. v. American Life Insurance & Trust Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Caplin v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance
182 A.D. 269 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1918)
Schneider v. Foote
27 F. 581 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, 1886)
Perault v. Rand
17 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 222 (New York Supreme Court, 1877)
Fuller v. Cadwell
88 Mass. 503 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1863)
Rogers v. Cross
3 Pin. 36 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1850)