Pine v. Shannon

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Pine v. Shannon

32 N.J. Eq. 85

DecidedFebruary 15, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 32 N.J. Eq. 85 (Pine v. Shannon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pine v. Shannon, 32 N.J. Eq. 85 (N.J. Ct. App. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The defendant, George Yan Horn, who was made a party to the bill because he had attached, and, under the attachment, claimed to have a lien upon part of the mortgage money, now moves to dissolve the injunction. He is a necessary party to the suit. Pine v. Shannon, 3 Stew. 501; S. C. on appeal, sub nom. Van Horn v. Pine, 4 Stew. 367.

On the filing of the bill a deposit sufficient to answer his claim was required as a condition to granting the injunction to stay his proceedings at law. It was made, and the [86]*86injunction issued. The property has been sold under a decree of foreclosure in this suit, and all the proceeds of sale, except the costs, are in court. He moves to dissolve the injunction, in order that he may proceed with his attachment.

Of course it would not be just to the.garnishee, to permit him to do so, and he can litigate his claim as against the complainant in this court more expeditiously and economically than, and quite as well as, in the court of law. There is no reason why he should not be required to do so.

The motion is denied, with costs.

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

The Chancellor.

The defendant, George Yan Horn, who was made a party to the bill because he had attached, and, under the attachment, claimed to have a lien upon part of the mortgage money, now moves to dissolve the injunction. He is a necessary party to the suit. Pine v. Shannon, 3 Stew. 501; S. C. on appeal, sub nom. Van Horn v. Pine, 4 Stew. 367.

On the filing of the bill a deposit sufficient to answer his claim was required as a condition to granting the injunction to stay his proceedings at law. It was made, and the [86]*86injunction issued. The property has been sold under a decree of foreclosure in this suit, and all the proceeds of sale, except the costs, are in court. He moves to dissolve the injunction, in order that he may proceed with his attachment.

Of course it would not be just to the.garnishee, to permit him to do so, and he can litigate his claim as against the complainant in this court more expeditiously and economically than, and quite as well as, in the court of law. There is no reason why he should not be required to do so.

The motion is denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.J. Eq. 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pine-v-shannon-njch-1880.