Bartlett v. . McNeil

New York Court of Appeals

Bartlett v. . McNeil

60 N.Y. 53, 1875 N.Y. LEXIS 139

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 9, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 60 N.Y. 53 (Bartlett v. . McNeil) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bartlett v. . McNeil, 60 N.Y. 53, 1875 N.Y. LEXIS 139 (N.Y. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 55 The appeal from the order of the General Term, affirming the order of the Special Term, amending the judgment, must be dismissed, on the ground that the amendment did not change the character or force of the judgment as originally rendered, and the court cannot, in this proceeding, determine its validity, or whether it can be enforced against any property of the defendant which may be found at any time in this State.

The order affirming the order of the Special Term, denying the motion that the court fix a time for the examination of the defendant, under section 292 of the Code, must be affirmed. The case of Schwinger v. Hickok (53 N.Y., 280), is decisive against the right of the plaintiff to proceed in personam against the defendant, by arresting him, as was done in this case, or for the purpose of compelling him to submit to an examination in respect to his property.

All concur; FOLGER and RAPALLO, JJ., not sitting.

Ordered accordingly. *Page 56

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

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 55 The appeal from the order of the General Term, affirming the order of the Special Term, amending the judgment, must be dismissed, on the ground that the amendment did not change the character or force of the judgment as originally rendered, and the court cannot, in this proceeding, determine its validity, or whether it can be enforced against any property of the defendant which may be found at any time in this State.

The order affirming the order of the Special Term, denying the motion that the court fix a time for the examination of the defendant, under section 292 of the Code, must be affirmed. The case of Schwinger v. Hickok (53 N.Y., 280), is decisive against the right of the plaintiff to proceed in personam against the defendant, by arresting him, as was done in this case, or for the purpose of compelling him to submit to an examination in respect to his property.

All concur; FOLGER and RAPALLO, JJ., not sitting.

Ordered accordingly. *Page 56

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 N.Y. 53, 1875 N.Y. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartlett-v-mcneil-ny-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack