Majority
p. 311Schoonmaker against Gillett. February 10. No opposition was made.
Headnote
¿Du affidavits of a breach of an injunction to stay waste, and of personal service of a copy of the affidavits, and notice of the motion, an attachment was ordered to bring up the defendant to answer for the contempt.THE defendant was, on the 7th of January last, served with an injunction to stay waste. On the 2d of Februa'ry inst. he was served with a notice on the part of the plaintiff that the Court would be moved on the 9th inst. that he stand committed to prison for breach of the injunction ; and he was at the same time served with copies of the affidavits of Charles Ely, and of the plaintiff, stating, that on the 3d inst., a son of the defendant was cutting and felling trees on the premises, in sight of the defendant, who saw it, as was believed; and that the defendant at the same time was requested not to cut the timber, and replied, that he would cut the timber,
H. Bleecker,
on the above affidavits, moved for an attachment to bring up the defendant. He cited 2 Ham Pr. 268. NewlancPs Prac. 101.
on the authority of the case of Angerstein v. Hunt, (6 Vesey, 488.) and on the due service of the affidavits and notice, ordered, that an attachment issue to the sheriff to bring the defendant into court, to answer for the contempt.