Adler v. Baltzer

The Superior Court of New York City

Adler v. Baltzer

22 Jones & S. 514

The Superior Court of New York City·Decided December 30, 1886·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The pleadings show that the answer admitted that an order had been made discharging an [515] attachment. 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] attachment. 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.

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

Pincite

22 Jones & S. 514 (Adler v. Baltzer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.