Adler v. Baltzer

The Superior Court of New York City

Adler v. Baltzer

22 Jones & S. 514

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedDecember 30, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Jones & S. 514 (Adler v. Baltzer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adler v. Baltzer, 22 Jones & S. 514 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The pleadings show that the answer admitted that an order had been made discharging an [515]*515attachment. There was, therefore, no issue on this point to be tried. It may be said, however, that no testimony was given that tended to show that the admission was not correct. There was no defense, if such an order had been made.

Wingate & Qullen, for appellant. Horwitz & Hershfield, for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The pleadings show that the answer admitted that an order had been made discharging an [515]*515attachment. There was, therefore, no issue on this point to be tried. It may be said, however, that no testimony was given that tended to show that the admission was not correct. There was no defense, if such an order had been made.

Wingate & Qullen, for appellant. Horwitz & Hershfield, for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Jones & S. 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adler-v-baltzer-nysuperctnyc-1886.