Fellows v. Fellows
Ezra Fellows against John Fellows
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
The Chancellor.
The doctrine in the case cited, is correct and applicable. “ I find,” said Lord Eldon, “ the Court has adhered very closely to the principle, that you cannot have an injunction, except against a party to the suit. Upon a review of all the cases, I think the practice of granting an injunction against a creditor, who is not a party, is wrong. The Court has no right to grant an injunction against a person whom they have not brought, or attempted to bring, before the Court, by subpoena. I have no conception, that it is competent to this Court to hold a man bound by an injunction, who is not a party in the cause, for the purpose of the cause.” I shall, accordingly, dissolve the injunction as against those persons who were not made parties to the suit. A purchaser was restrained, in the case of Green v. Lowes, (3 Bro. 217.) from paying *26 the purchase money, on a bill by the creditors of the vendor, but the purchaser was made a party.
• Order accordingly.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“[Y]ou cannot have an injunction, except against a party to the suit.”)
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.