Randall v. Carpenter

New York Supreme Court

Randall v. Carpenter

29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 571

DecidedNovember 15, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 571 (Randall v. Carpenter) 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

Randall v. Carpenter, 29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 571 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Cdriam:

The defendants mistook their remedy. The ■ insolvency of one of the sureties upon the injunction undertaking, was no ground for staying plaintiff’s proceedings generally. The temporary injunction could have been dissolved, unless a new and sufficient surety were supplied. But that was all. The action was not dependent upon the provisional remedy. The granting or withholding of the latter was a matter of discretion. But the prosecution by the plaintiff of his action was a matter of right.

The order should have directed that the injunction be dissolved, unless the plaintiff file a new undertaking as directed in the present order, within a specified period. A modification to that effect may now be made, and the order is so modified without costs of the motion, or of this appeal.

Present — Davis, P. J., Brady and Barrett, JJ.

Order modified as directed in opinion, without costs of the motion, or of the appeal.

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

Per Cdriam:

The defendants mistook their remedy. The ■ insolvency of one of the sureties upon the injunction undertaking, was no ground for staying plaintiff’s proceedings generally. The temporary injunction could have been dissolved, unless a new and sufficient surety were supplied. But that was all. The action was not dependent upon the provisional remedy. The granting or withholding of the latter was a matter of discretion. But the prosecution by the plaintiff of his action was a matter of right.

The order should have directed that the injunction be dissolved, unless the plaintiff file a new undertaking as directed in the present order, within a specified period. A modification to that effect may now be made, and the order is so modified without costs of the motion, or of this appeal.

Present — Davis, P. J., Brady and Barrett, JJ.

Order modified as directed in opinion, without costs of the motion, or of the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-v-carpenter-nysupct-1880.