Hyperlawhypertext legal database Staten Island Dyeing Establishment v. Skinner Engine Co. 26 N.Y.S. 1100

← Cases

Staten Island Dyeing Establishment v. Skinner Engine Co.

26 N.Y.S. 1100 Court N.Y. Gen. Term Decision date 1894-01-12 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1100
STATEN ISLAND DYEING ESTABLISHMENT v. SKINNER ENGINE CO. et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
January 12, 1894.)

Headnote

Injunction—Restraining Action on Note.
An action against the maker of a note will not be enjoined on the ground that the original holder has not complied with the contract out of which the note sued on arasé, unless it appears that the original holder is unable ■to respond to a judgment for the damages resulting from his default.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Action by the Staten Island Dyeing Establishment against the Skinner Engine Company and another. From an order denying a motion for an injunction, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN and PARKER JJ.
G. Zabriskie, for appellant.
H. D. Ewing, for respondents.

The only ground upon which equity can be called upon to intervene, under the circumstances disclosed by the papers upon this appeal, is that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury unless the court of equity restrains the prosecution of the action at law. This irreparable injury can be suffered only in case the original holder of the note is unable to respond to a judgment for the damages alleged to have been sustained by his failure to comply with the contract out of which the note in suit in the court of law arose. In the complaint in this action we have been unable to find any allegation that the original holder of the note, against whom the plaintiff claims to have a cause of action for damages for breach of contract, is insolvent. If he is capable of meeting any judgment which may be obtained against him because of his alleged breach of contract, then by the payment of the note in question to its

p. 1101
holders the plaintiff sustains no irreparable damage. Without this allegation, it seems to us, the plaintiff fails to show any ground for equitable interference. The order should be affirmed, with $10-costs and disbursements.