Hardenburg v. Smullyan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hardenburg v. Smullyan

201 A.D. 856

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1922·Published

Opinion

Order denying motion to vacate attachment reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate attachment granted, with ten dollars costs, upon the ground that -there were not sufficient facts presented to justify the inference that defendant had departed from the State with intent to defraud his creditors, and that there was, therefore, no basis for the warrant of attachment. (O’Rourke v. Rankin, 193 App. Div. 494.) Blackmar, P. J., Kelly, Jaycox, Manning and Young, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying motion to vacate attachment reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate attachment granted, with ten dollars costs, upon the ground that -there were not sufficient facts presented to justify the inference that defendant had departed from the State with intent to defraud his creditors, and that there was, therefore, no basis for the warrant of attachment. (O’Rourke v. Rankin, 193 App. Div. 494.) Blackmar, P. J., Kelly, Jaycox, Manning and Young, JJ., concur.

Hardenburg v. Smullyan, 201 A.D. 856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

201 A.D. 856 (Hardenburg v. Smullyan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related