High Rock Knitting Co. v. Bronner

New York Supreme Court

High Rock Knitting Co. v. Bronner

18 Misc. 631, 43 N.Y.S. 684

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 15, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 Misc. 631 (High Rock Knitting Co. v. Bronner) 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

High Rock Knitting Co. v. Bronner, 18 Misc. 631, 43 N.Y.S. 684 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Hiscock, J.

This motion was urged upon the argument upon the sole ground that .the return of the execution upon which the order in supplementary proceedings was granted herein was made at the request of plaintiff’s attorney. There was no claim of any fraud or collusion between such attorney and the. sheriff or that there was property out of which said execution should have been collected. In fact it appears by the affidavit of the deputy sheriff upon which in part the order herein was granted that the execution in this case was returned at the same time with others in his hands.

Defendants upon this motion seek simply to set aside the order in supplementary proceedings. They do not directly attack or ask to have set aside' the return of the sheriff upon which, that order was granted. So long as that return stands it is a sufficient basis for the order and the latter should, not be set aside. Spurling v. Levy, 10 Abb. Pr. 426; Tyler v. Willis, 33 Barb. 327, 332.

Furthermore the mere return of an execution inside of the sixty days fixed by law, even though made at the suggestion or request of the plaintiff’s attorney, does not invalidate or vitiate such return. In order to accomplish such latter result there must be present some other element, such as collusion between the plaintiff and the sheriff, or intentional omission to attempt to collect such execution. Forbes v. Waller, 25 N. Y. 430; Renaud v. O’Brien, 35 id. 97, 100; Pudney v. Griffiths, 15 How. Pr. 410.

Motion denied, with $10 costs.

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

Hiscock, J.

This motion was urged upon the argument upon the sole ground that .the return of the execution upon which the order in supplementary proceedings was granted herein was made at the request of plaintiff’s attorney. There was no claim of any fraud or collusion between such attorney and the. sheriff or that there was property out of which said execution should have been collected. In fact it appears by the affidavit of the deputy sheriff upon which in part the order herein was granted that the execution in this case was returned at the same time with others in his hands.

Defendants upon this motion seek simply to set aside the order in supplementary proceedings. They do not directly attack or ask to have set aside' the return of the sheriff upon which, that order was granted. So long as that return stands it is a sufficient basis for the order and the latter should, not be set aside. Spurling v. Levy, 10 Abb. Pr. 426; Tyler v. Willis, 33 Barb. 327, 332.

Furthermore the mere return of an execution inside of the sixty days fixed by law, even though made at the suggestion or request of the plaintiff’s attorney, does not invalidate or vitiate such return. In order to accomplish such latter result there must be present some other element, such as collusion between the plaintiff and the sheriff, or intentional omission to attempt to collect such execution. Forbes v. Waller, 25 N. Y. 430; Renaud v. O’Brien, 35 id. 97, 100; Pudney v. Griffiths, 15 How. Pr. 410.

Motion denied, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Misc. 631, 43 N.Y.S. 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/high-rock-knitting-co-v-bronner-nysupct-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack