Case ID: edw-ch_4/html/0671-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Vice-Chancellor :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Waddell and wife v. Bruen and others.
    
      Jan. 28, 1846.
    An injunction is not to be granted on filing a bill, where it is not essential to secure rights and where the filing of a notice of lis pendens will answer.
    Injunction dissolved where the allegations embracing the equity are on information and belief.
    ' JrTCLCtlCG
    
    Bill filed against the defendant Matthias Bruen, on the ground that he, being trustee, wrongly took the title in himself and in the defendant Alexander M. Bruen; and that • ’ certain releases, executed by the complainants, were void. The allegations, embracing the equity, were charged on information and belief. A preliminary injunction had been granted j a motion was now made on the bill alone, to dissolve it.
    Mr. Bidwell, for the motion.
    Mr. Ellingwood and Mr. G. Wood, opposed.
    
      Feb. 24.
   The Vice-Chancellor :

The bill, on its face, shows a clear case enough for equitable relief. But the material allegations are only on the complainant’s information and belief. They are not such allegations, therefore, as entitle the complainants to a preliminary injunction. Nor is such an injunction essential in order to secure the complainants in theix rights. The filing of a lis pendens will answer all the purposes of the injunction granted in limine : Osborn v. Taylor, 5 Paige’s C. R. 515.

Injunction dissolved. Costs may abide the event.