Opinion
12-01-1887
BROWNE v. FRENCH and another.
J. L. Vansyckel, for complainant. W. V. Birault, for defendants.
hich was not due, and an illegal foreclosure of a chattel mortgage on account of the distraint. On a motion to show
Bill for relief. Heard on bill, answer, and affidavits.
Browne, the complainant, purchased a printing-press, etc., of French, one of the defendants, paying part cash, and giving notes, secured by chattel mortgage, for the balance, with a provision that, if any process issued against the property, it should be due at once; and also rented a building of the other defendant, French's wife. Mrs. French distrained on the property for rent, and French foreclosed. Complainant filed a bill asking for an injunction, alleging that the rent was not due at the time of the distraint, which, on order to show cause why injunction should not issue, defendant denied.
J. L. Vansyckel, for complainant. W. V. Birault, for defendants.
BIRD, V. C. In this case, the defendant Mrs. French distrained for rent. The complainant filed his bill, and obtained an order to show cause why an injunction should not issue restraining all further proceedings upon the distress warrant. Upon the hearing, the answer and affidavits make such positive and distinct denial as to rob the complainant of all equity. The equity of the case did not arise out of the alleged illegal distraint, because the rent was not yet due; but because one of the other defendants, who held a chattel mortgage on the same and other goods, or at least on other goods, took advantage of the distraint to seize upon all of the goods in the chattel mortgage named; thereby so complicating the alleged rights of the complainant as to give him a standing in this court. But it is my judgment that neither one of the said causes, (the illegal distraint, nor the illegal seizure under the chattel mortgage,) standing alone, is sufficient to give this court jurisdiction. The complainant not being able, on the hearing, to show a legal right to the order as to the rent, that branch of his case must fall, and, of course, the other, being the only question,—a single issue, and triable at law,—must fall with it. I will so advise, with costs.