China Mutual Insurance v. Wallace

New York Supreme Court

China Mutual Insurance v. Wallace

14 N.Y. St. Rep. 932

DecidedFebruary 13, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 14 N.Y. St. Rep. 932 (China Mutual Insurance v. Wallace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

China Mutual Insurance v. Wallace, 14 N.Y. St. Rep. 932 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.—This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside an attachment against the property of the defendants.

■ The action is brought on a promissory note made by the defendants to the plaintiff. The verification of the complaint and the affidavit for the procure ment of the attachment were made by the attorney for the plaintiff, who has possession of the promissory note upon which the action is founded.

The allegations and statements in the affidavit are sufficient to require the exercise of the judgment of the judicial officer to whom the papers were presented for the issuance of the attachment, and the facts stated were sufficient to make aprima facie case.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Pratt, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.

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

Dykman, J.—This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside an attachment against the property of the defendants.

■ The action is brought on a promissory note made by the defendants to the plaintiff. The verification of the complaint and the affidavit for the procure ment of the attachment were made by the attorney for the plaintiff, who has possession of the promissory note upon which the action is founded.

The allegations and statements in the affidavit are sufficient to require the exercise of the judgment of the judicial officer to whom the papers were presented for the issuance of the attachment, and the facts stated were sufficient to make aprima facie case.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Pratt, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.Y. St. Rep. 932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/china-mutual-insurance-v-wallace-nysupct-1888.