Norfolk & New Brunswick Hosiery Co. v. Arnold

New York Supreme Court

Norfolk & New Brunswick Hosiery Co. v. Arnold

27 N.Y.S. 661, 76 Hun 19, 83 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 19, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 152

DecidedFebruary 12, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 27 N.Y.S. 661 (Norfolk & New Brunswick Hosiery Co. v. Arnold) 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

Norfolk & New Brunswick Hosiery Co. v. Arnold, 27 N.Y.S. 661, 76 Hun 19, 83 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 19, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 152 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

PRATT, J.

Defendant, Arnold, has recovered in this court a judgment against this plaintiff upon several installments of a continuous contract, from which judgment an appeal is pending. Since the first action was begun, further installments have become due, to recover which this defendant brings an action in New York common pleas. The plaintiff now brings this suit, praying that defendant be restrained from prosecuting the action in New York common pleas, and from bringing any subsequent action to enforce the contract. The effect of the judgment recovered was to establish the validity of the contract. The affirmative relief against it, sought in the first action by the present plaintiff, having been denied, and the contract declared valid, the court could not, in that action, have restrained the successful party from proceeding to enforce the contract. Spears v. Mathews, 66 N. Y. 127. WTe are at loss to see that the court has, in the present action, any better right to restrain the successful party from exercising the rights to which it has been declared entitled than it had in the previous action. Waring v. Yale, 1 Hun, 492. This defendant, in bringing suit upon a contract declared to be valid, cannot be said to be acting vexatiously or oppressively; on the contrary, she is availing herself of a clear legal right. Cushman v. Leland, 93 N. Y. 652, does not afford authority for this action. There, a trustee in a mortgage to secure a general issue of bonds has brought an action to foreclose the mortgage. The holder of one of the bonds, who was a party to the first action, and had therein set up his rights and submitted them to the court, was restrained from prosecuting a separate action for his individual benefit. That was a clear case of a multiplicity of suits. The prosecution of the individual action was in no sense requisite to protect the plaintiff’s rights, which could be fully protected in the action brought by the trustee. The order granting an injunction must be reversed, with costs.

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

PRATT, J.

Defendant, Arnold, has recovered in this court a judgment against this plaintiff upon several installments of a continuous contract, from which judgment an appeal is pending. Since the first action was begun, further installments have become due, to recover which this defendant brings an action in New York common pleas. The plaintiff now brings this suit, praying that defendant be restrained from prosecuting the action in New York common pleas, and from bringing any subsequent action to enforce the contract. The effect of the judgment recovered was to establish the validity of the contract. The affirmative relief against it, sought in the first action by the present plaintiff, having been denied, and the contract declared valid, the court could not, in that action, have restrained the successful party from proceeding to enforce the contract. Spears v. Mathews, 66 N. Y. 127. WTe are at loss to see that the court has, in the present action, any better right to restrain the successful party from exercising the rights to which it has been declared entitled than it had in the previous action. Waring v. Yale, 1 Hun, 492. This defendant, in bringing suit upon a contract declared to be valid, cannot be said to be acting vexatiously or oppressively; on the contrary, she is availing herself of a clear legal right. Cushman v. Leland, 93 N. Y. 652, does not afford authority for this action. There, a trustee in a mortgage to secure a general issue of bonds has brought an action to foreclose the mortgage. The holder of one of the bonds, who was a party to the first action, and had therein set up his rights and submitted them to the court, was restrained from prosecuting a separate action for his individual benefit. That was a clear case of a multiplicity of suits. The prosecution of the individual action was in no sense requisite to protect the plaintiff’s rights, which could be fully protected in the action brought by the trustee. The order granting an injunction must be reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 N.Y.S. 661, 76 Hun 19, 83 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 19, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norfolk-new-brunswick-hosiery-co-v-arnold-nysupct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack