Hagerty v. Lee
Decision Date | 17 June 1889 |
Citation | 45 N.J.E. 255,17 A. 826 |
Parties | HAGERTY v. LEE et al. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from court of chancery; MCGILL, Chancellor. 15 Atl. Rep. 399.
I. W. Schultz, for appellant. J. I. Blair Reiley and J. G. Shipman, for respondents.
This appeal was taken from an order of the chancellor denying a preliminary injunction. The facts fully appear in the chancellor's opinion. It is impossible to emphasize too strongly the rule so often enforced in this court, that a preliminary injunction will not be allowed where either the complainant's right which he seeks to have protected in limine by an interlocutory injunction is in doubt, or where the injury which may result from an invasion of that right is not irreparable. Railroad Co. v. Prudden, 20 N. J. Eq. 530, 541; Coach Co. v. Railroad Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 299; Railroad Co. v. Stock-Yard Co., 43 N. J. Eq. 605, 12 Atl. Rep. 374, and 13 Atl. Rep. 615. One of the latest decisions in the English courts to the same effect is Steam-Ship Co. v. McGregor, L. R. 15 Q. B. Div. 476. Whether, when the case reaches the stage of final hearing, an issue of law should be granted within the rules laid down in Hart v. Leonard, 42 N. J. Eq. 416-419, 7 Atl. Rep. 865, we need not at this time consider. In Coach Co. v. Railroad Co., an order of the chancellor granting a preliminary injunction was set aside on appeal, (29 N. J. Eq. 299,) and afterwards a final decree protecting the same right by injunction was affirmed by this court, (33 N. J. Eq. 267.) This case was heard in the court of chancery on bill and answer, and affidavits annexed thereto. On these exhibits the chancellor's conclusion, that the complainant's injury from the threatened obstruction of windows was not so substantial as to warrant a preliminary injunction, is fully sustained. The decree should be affirmed. Affirmed unanimously.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Light v. Nat'l Dyeing & Printing Co.
...are alleged to create an equity in favor of the complainant. Citizens Coach Co. v. Camden Horse R. R. Co., 29 N.J.Eq. 299; Hagerty v. Lee, 45 N.J.Eq. 255, 17 A. 826; McMillan v. Kuehnle, 78 N.J.Eq. 251, 78 A. 185; Sneath v. Lehsten, 120 N.J.Eq. 327, 185 A. 55. The defendants maintain that t......
- Middleditch v. Williams