Steinberg v. O'Conner

New York Court of Common Pleas

Steinberg v. O'Conner

42 How. Pr. 52

DecidedMarch 15, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 42 How. Pr. 52 (Steinberg v. O'Conner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steinberg v. O'Conner, 42 How. Pr. 52 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

Loew, J.

We think it is clear that the injunction in this

case cannot stand.

The facts alleged in the complaint, and on which the equities thereof are founded, are all positively denied by the answer, and besides, it appears to ns extremely doubtful whether the plaintiff will ultimately he entitled to the relief he demands.

It is well settled that in such a case a preliminary injunction will not be sustained.

The order appealed from should he reversed and the preliminary injunction dissolved.

Robinson and J. F. Daly, JJ., concurred. [55]*55revive the suit against the wishes of the plaintiffs. That the Code contained no provision for the revival of an action abated by the death of the defendant, except on the motion of the plaintiff (Keene agt. La Farge, 1 Bosw., 671; Seaboard and R. R. R. agt. Ward, 18 Barb., 595; Cooke agt. Beach, 25 How., 356).

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

Loew, J.

We think it is clear that the injunction in this

case cannot stand.

The facts alleged in the complaint, and on which the equities thereof are founded, are all positively denied by the answer, and besides, it appears to ns extremely doubtful whether the plaintiff will ultimately he entitled to the relief he demands.

It is well settled that in such a case a preliminary injunction will not be sustained.

The order appealed from should he reversed and the preliminary injunction dissolved.

Robinson and J. F. Daly, JJ., concurred. [55]*55revive the suit against the wishes of the plaintiffs. That the Code contained no provision for the revival of an action abated by the death of the defendant, except on the motion of the plaintiff (Keene agt. La Farge, 1 Bosw., 671; Seaboard and R. R. R. agt. Ward, 18 Barb., 595; Cooke agt. Beach, 25 How., 356).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 How. Pr. 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinberg-v-oconner-nyctcompl-1871.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack