Case Name: Waddell and wife v. Bruen and others
Court: New York Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1846-01-28
Citations: 4 Edw. Ch. 671
Docket Number: 
Parties: Waddell and wife v. Bruen and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Edwards' Chancery Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 671–671

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.