Granger v. Smyth

This action was brought to dissolve a copartnership and for an accounting. The plaintiff asked for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from collecting,. receiving or in any manner interfering or meddling with or disposing of the partnership debts, moneys, notes or other property, and that a receiver be appointed. A temporary injunction was issued upon the complaint and the affidavit of the plaintiff verifying the matters alleged therein which was served .with the summons and complaint. The defendants answered, putting in issue the allegations of the complaint upon which the plaintiff’s right of action depended, setting up a counterclaim. Upon a stipulation of the parties the case was referred to a referee to hear, try and determine. Upon the day appointed for the trial before the referee the parties appeared by their. attorneys, but the attorney for the plaintiff submitted no evidence in support of the allegations of his complaint. The defendants produced testimony sustaining their counterclaim, and thereupon the referee made his report upon which judgment was entered dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint and awarding judgment in favor of the defendants for the amount of their counterclaim. Thereafter upon the motion of the defendants an order of reference was made to ascertain the damages sustained by them by reason of the temporary injunction. A hearing was had before the referee, who made his report to

It has been held that where the parties voluntarily settle the action, or where the same has been discontinued upon the application of the plaintiff, or where the same has abated on account of the death of a party, an order of reference will not issue to ascertain the damages sustained by reason of the injunction under section 623 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the reason that the court has not finally decided that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto under the provisions of section 620. (Palmer v. Foley, 71 N. Y. 106 -111; Hall v. Sexton, 19 N. Y. St. Repr. 677 ; S. C., 3 N. Y. Supp. 549 ; Johnson v. Elwood, 82 N. Y. 362 ; The N. Y., W. S. & B. R. Co. v. Omerod, 29 Hun, 274 .)

But in the case of The Pacific Mail Steamship Company v. Toel ( 85 N. Y. 646 ), it was held that where a plaintiff who has obtained a preliminary injunction, after it has been seiwed, enters an order vacating it, and subsequently, without. the consent of the defendant, obtained an ex pa/rte order discontinuing the action, these orders are equivalent to a determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction and defendant is entitled to an order of reference to ascertain his damages by reason thereof. In Amberg v. Kramer ( 8 N. Y. Supp. 821 ), it was held by the first department, that where a temporary injunction had been vacated upon the application of the defendant, the plaintiff consenting thereto and the action having been discontinued by the plaintiff, that there had been a determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction and that the defendant was entitled to his order of reference. And in Manufacturers & Traders' Bank v. Folk ( 21 N. Y. Supp. 806 ; 50 N. Y. St. Repr. 802 ), it was also held by the first department, that where the temporary injunction is granted upon the complaint, that the plaintiff’s right thereto depends upon the establishment judicially of

In the case of Benedict v. Benedict ( 15 Hun, 305 ; affd., 76 N. Y. 600 ), the action was brought to compel a specific performance of a verbal agreement to convey real estate, and a temporary injunction was obtained restraining the defendant from incumbering the place or Collecting rents thereon pending the trial. Upon the trial the referee decided that the agreement was void, but held that the plaintiff had a vendor’s lien upon the land, which he directed to be foreclosed and ordered a sale as in case of a mortgage, making no reference or direction as to the injunction. In that ease it was held that the judgment did not determine .that the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction. This, however, was made upon the ground that the judgment was really a determination in favor of the plaintiff and is not in conflict with the cases above cited.

Upon the case under consideration as we have seen, there has been a judgment entered after trial, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. This is a final determination that the plaintiff had no cause of action. If he had no cause of action he had no right to a temporary injunction. It follows that the judgment is a final determination by the court that the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction within the meaning of the provisions of the Code referred to.

The order of the Special Term should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted.

Lewis and Brad let, JJ., concurred.

Order appealed from reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to confirm the report of the referee granted.