Storm v. Mann

New York Court of Chancery

Storm v. Mann

4 Johns. Ch. 21, 1819 N.Y. LEXIS 169, 1819 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 9

CourtNew York Court of Chancery

DecidedJanuary 25, 1819

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 4 Johns. Ch. 21 (Storm v. Mann) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Storm v. Mann, 4 Johns. Ch. 21, 1819 N.Y. LEXIS 169, 1819 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 9 (N.Y. 1819).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The title appears to be disputed; for the defendant has been in possession for a long time, and has joined issue with the plaintiff at law, on the question of title, and the action is still pending undetermined. Under these circumstances, I do not feel myself authorized to grant the injunction.

In Field v. Jackson, (Dickens, 599.) the Lord Chancellor held it to be a general rule, that when the right was doubtful, the court would not grant an injunction. So, in a case before Lord Eldon, (Pillsworth v. Hopton, 6 Ves. 51.) an injunction to restrain waste was not granted against a defendant in possession, claiming by an adverse title. If the plaintiff, in his bill, states such a claim on the part of the defendant, he states himself out of court, as to the injunction. In the present case, the bill does state to that effect, when it states that the defendant has been a long time in possession, and has joined issue with the plaintiff in ejectment. I must know the result of that issue at law before I can interfere.

Motion denied.

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

The Chancellor.

The title appears to be disputed; for the defendant has been in possession for a long time, and has joined issue with the plaintiff at law, on the question of title, and the action is still pending undetermined. Under these circumstances, I do not feel myself authorized to grant the injunction.

In Field v. Jackson, (Dickens, 599.) the Lord Chancellor held it to be a general rule, that when the right was doubtful, the court would not grant an injunction. So, in a case before Lord Eldon, (Pillsworth v. Hopton, 6 Ves. 51.) an injunction to restrain waste was not granted against a defendant in possession, claiming by an adverse title. If the plaintiff, in his bill, states such a claim on the part of the defendant, he states himself out of court, as to the injunction. In the present case, the bill does state to that effect, when it states that the defendant has been a long time in possession, and has joined issue with the plaintiff in ejectment. I must know the result of that issue at law before I can interfere.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Johns. Ch. 21, 1819 N.Y. LEXIS 169, 1819 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/storm-v-mann-nychanct-1819.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack