Case ID: ny-st-rep_36/html/0078-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hugh Donnelly, App’lt, v. George B. Morris, Resp’t.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed January 5, 1891.)
    
    Injunction—Restraint of action in foreign state.
    Plaintiff was sued by defendant in another state upon a promissory-note, although both are residents of this state. In this action ior a partnership accounting plaintiff asks for an injunction to restrain the action on the note on the ground that defendant was to apply moneys received by him on partnership account to the payment thereof and that the note-has equitably been so paid. Meld, no ground for equitable interference.
    Appeal from an order refusing an injunction to restrain defendant from proceeding in an action brought by him in Massachusetts pending an action in this court for an accounting.
    ■ Both parties reside in New York, but the defendant began the. Massachusetts action against the plaintiff while he was temporarily on a visit to the latter state.
    The ground of that action is a promissory note made by the plaintiff and delivered to defendant for $1,342, which was immediately indorsed and delivered to one Annie C. Wood, as-trustee, the money loaned upon the note belonging • in fact to-Miss Wood.
    The plaintiff claims that the note was fully paid, long before the Massachusetts action was begun, by moneys received by the defendant upon partnership account
    
      Leroy S. Gove, for app’lt; George S. Bliss, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff did not establish any equity upon the motion. The supposed equity was founded upon the application by defendant to the payment of the note of partnership assets, or the defendant’s breach of his agreement to apply those assets to the. payment of the note. Either contingency does not create an equity. All of it is that it is inconvenient to ascertain the facts and to go to Massachusetts to defend the action there, This is not ground of equitable interference.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

Sedgwick, Oh. J., Freedman and Ingraham, JJ., concur.