Case Name: Isaac Lee vs. David Cargill et al.
Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1855-05
Citations: 10 N.J. Eq. 331
Docket Number: 
Parties: Isaac Lee vs. David Cargill et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 331–332

Head Matter:
Isaac Lee vs. David Cargill et al.
A subpoeena must be taken out with the injunction, and made returnable within the time prescribed by the rule for a return of service of the injunction.
The rule requires the injunction to be served within ten days after the issuing thereof, and a return of service made to the court within twenty days after such service.
Mr. Schenck now moved to dissolve the injunction granted on filing the bill, and among other grounds because subpoenas had not been issued.
H. V. Speer, contra.

Opinion:
The Chancellor.
When this injunction was allowed, it was with some reluctance, from the fact, that the complainant had not applied to the court for protection with as much promptness as he ought. It now appears he is in default in not issuing his subpoenas with proper diligence. The injunction was granted on the 6th day of February, the first day of the last term of the court, and up to the time of this application, April Eh, no subpoenas have been returned. As, by the statute, a subpoena may be returned in vacation, and the legislature has endeavored, by late enactments, to facilitate proceedings in this court, it must be exacted of every party that he use due diligence in expediting his cause. The subpoena must be taken out with the injunction. The rule of the court requires the injunction to be served within ten days after the issuing thereof, and a return of service made to the court within twenty days after such service. The practice will be hereafter strictly followed requiring the subpoena to be taken out with the writ of injunction, and returned to the court within the time prescribed by the rule for a return of service of the injunction.
In this case the complainant is in laches according to the practice heretofore adopted. West v. Smith, 1 Green's Ch. Rep. 309; 1 Halst. Dig. 535, §1; and the injunction must be dissolved with costs.
Cited in Brown v. Fuller, 2 Beas. 274; Hoagland v. Titus, 1 McCar. 82; Schalk v. Schmidt, 1 McCar. 271.