New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1841

Vliet v. Lowmason

Vliet v. Lowmason
New Jersey Court of Chancery · Decided April 15, 1841
2 N.J. Eq. 404

Counsel

Wilson, for complainant,, Vroom, contra,

Vliet v. Lowmason

Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

Thomas Lowmason, whose rights°alone are affected by the injunction, has fully answered, denying the equity of the complainant’s bill. The other defendant is one of the makers of the note upon which the action is brought, to restrain which the injunction issued. He can have no interest in answering the bill, nor can his answer avail the complainant. The general rule is, that where there are several defendants, all must answer before the injunction will be dissolved ; but to this there are exceptions. Where the defendant against whom the *405gravamen of the charge rests has fully answered, the injunction will be dissolved, although no other defendant has answered* Injunction dissolved,

See accord, Depeyster v. Graves, 2 John. Chan. R. 148; Jones v. Magill, 1 Bland. 190; Stewart v. Barry, Ibid, 192; Williams v. Hall, Ibid, 194; Chaplin v. Betty, Ibid, 197; Fong v. Oliver, Ibid, 199; Wakeman v. Gillespy, 5 Paige, 112; Higgins v. Woodward, 1 Hop. 342; Noble v. Wilson, 1 Paige, 164; 1 Hoffman’s Ch. Pr. 360.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.