Rogers v. Vosburgh

Decided August 5, 1819

New York Court of Chancery · decided 1819-08-05

ON the coming in of the answer, J. Radcliff, for the defendant, moved to dissolve the injunction heretofore issued in this cause, restraining' the defendant from further inter-meddling with the concerns of a periodical publication, entitled, “ The JYew-York City-Hall Recorderand he also further moved, to restrain the plaintiff from proceeding at íaw on the judgment entered up in the Supreme Court, mentioned in the pleadings as being taken as liquidated damages, for the same…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1819-08-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1902

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The following order, putting the party to his election, was entered:

¶2“ Ordered, that the motion for dissolving the injunction be denied, and that the plaintiff, within eight days after notice of this decretal order, elect whether he will proceed at law under the said judgment, or in this Court, in this suit; and that if he elects to proceed at law, the bill shall thereafter stand dismissed with costs; and if he elects to proceed here, it is then further ordered, that he proceed no further *85by execution, or otherwise, on the judgment) withotit the leave of this Court first had and obtained,” &c.(a)

¶3Vide 1 Ves. & Beam. 382,3. 7 Taunt. 236. the like rule in such cases.