Hale v. Brote

New York Supreme Court

Hale v. Brote

26 N.Y.S. 950, 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 13, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 224

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 12, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 26 N.Y.S. 950 (Hale v. Brote) 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

Hale v. Brote, 26 N.Y.S. 950, 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 13, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 224 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It appears upon the face of the attachment that it was issued upon the ground that the defendants have disposed of their property, and are about to dispose of their property, with intent to cheat and defraud their creditors. It is manifest that,, if the defendants have disposed of their property, they could not be about to dispose of it, and that the plaintiffs have not complied with the provision of the Code in stating the ground upon which the attachment was issued. It is impossible for us to tell upon which ground the plaintiffs intended to rely, or which ground it is-claimed by them their affidavits tended to support. It would seemr therefore, if for no other reason, that this attachment should have been vacated because it did not state the ground upon which it was-granted. This is an error which has been committed before, as is-evidenced by the case of Johnson v. Buckel, (65 Hun, 601, 20 N. Y. Supp. 566,) and the cases there cited. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $16 costs and disbursements.

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

PER CURIAM.

It appears upon the face of the attachment that it was issued upon the ground that the defendants have disposed of their property, and are about to dispose of their property, with intent to cheat and defraud their creditors. It is manifest that,, if the defendants have disposed of their property, they could not be about to dispose of it, and that the plaintiffs have not complied with the provision of the Code in stating the ground upon which the attachment was issued. It is impossible for us to tell upon which ground the plaintiffs intended to rely, or which ground it is-claimed by them their affidavits tended to support. It would seemr therefore, if for no other reason, that this attachment should have been vacated because it did not state the ground upon which it was-granted. This is an error which has been committed before, as is-evidenced by the case of Johnson v. Buckel, (65 Hun, 601, 20 N. Y. Supp. 566,) and the cases there cited. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $16 costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 N.Y.S. 950, 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 13, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hale-v-brote-nysupct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack