Case ID: how-pr_3/html/0338-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bronson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COURT OF APPEALS,
    NOVEMBER, 1848.
    Robert J. Van Dewater vs. Alexander Kelsey.
    An appeal will not lie from orders granting, continuing or dissolving temporary injunctions; they are matters resting in the discretion of the court of original jurisdiction.
    On a bill filed by Van Dewater, a temporary injunction was issued, restraining the Defendant from selling the property in controversy pending the litigation. In December last, after the Defendant had answered the bill, the Supreme Court made an order dissolving the injunction ; from which order the complainant appealed to this court. SPECIAL TEEM REPORTS. 339 S. Mathews, for the respondent, moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that an appeal would not lie in such a ease. He cited 16 Wend. 369 ; 1 Comst. 43; 4 John. 510 ; 4 Wend. 173; 1 Paige, 97; 3 John. 566 ; 2 Story’s Eq. § 863, 959 ;(o) 3 Daniel Oh. Par. 1833 ; Ch. 35, § 3.
    N. Hill, Jr., for the appellant, cited 16 Wend. 373 ; 26 Wend. 152.
   Bronson, J.

The granting, continuing and dissolving of temporary injunctions rests in the discretion of the court of original jurisdiction ; and we think an appeal will not lie from the order dissolving this injunction.

Motion granted, with costs of the motion and the appeal