Case Name: Wood v. Marvine
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1854-08
Citations: 3 Duer 674
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wood v. Marvine.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 10
Pages: 674–675

Head Matter:
Wood v. Marvine.
A court of equity has- no power to restrain by injunction the publication of the-proceedings or evidence in another action, whether pending in the same or any other court. In cases in which such a prohibition is deemed to be necessary or proper, it must be made by an order in the cause, granted by the court in which the cause is pending.
At Chambers,
August, 1854.
Motion for an injunction upon the complaint. The complaint set forth in substance, that another action was pending in this court in which the plaintiff, as defendant, was charged with various acts of fraud, and relief was sought against him upon that ground; that the issues in this action had been referred and testimony in support of the charges taken before the referee, but that the testimony was not closed, the witnesses on the part of the defence not having been yet examined; and that the defendant Marvine, from malicious motives, threatened to publish immediately the pleadings and evidence which had been given; and therefore- prayed that such publication might be enjoined and restrained, as calculated to injure the plaintiff in his character and reputation, and to prejudice him in making his defence before the referee.
L. B. Shephard, for plaintiff.
J. T. Brady, for defendant.
Who cited 8 Paige, 24; 3 Edward Ch. 515; Eden on Injun. 227; 6 Howard P. R. 89 ; 7 Howard P. R. 19.

Opinion:
Duer, J.
Sitting as a judge in equity, I am satisfied that I have no power to continue this injunction. I do not believe that a court of equity has ever attempted to restrain the publication of the proceedings in a pending action at law, either upon the grounds set forth in this complaint, or upon any other; nor do I believe that had the jurisdiction ever been claimed, the courts of law would have submitted to its exercise. It would have been regarded and resisted as a manifest usurpation of power. It is the exclusive privilege of the court in which the action is pending to determine whether, for any reason, the publication of the proceedings ought to be forbidden, and where the prohibition is deemed to be necessary or proper, it can only be regularly made by an order in the cause. The case is not altered by the fact that the action is pending in this court, which is now a court of equity as well as of law, for the Code has certainly not enlarged the equitable jurisdiction, which it has given. It has given us no power to grant any other relief upon a complaint than the Court óf Chancery could have formerly granted upon a bill. If the plaintiff is entitled to the relief which he asks, he must seek it by a petition or motion in the action in which he is defendant. He has mistaken his remedy in filing this complaint.
The motion to continue the injunction is denied, and the injunction heretofore granted is dissolved.
(Oakley, C. J., concurred.)