In re Short

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Short

54 N.Y.S. 1075

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 22, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 N.Y.S. 1075 (In re Short) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Short, 54 N.Y.S. 1075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

LANDON, J.

The order appealed from must be ¿firmed, because the action was brought in a justice’s court to recover chattels, with damages for their detention. No order of arrest was issued, and therefore, if plaintiff had recovered, he would not have been entitled to an execution against the person of defendant upon account of the chattels (Code Civ. Proc. § 3026); and he was not entitled to an order of arrest under either subdivision 1 or 2 of section 2895, and therefore not entitled to an execution against the person (section 3026), upon account of damages for the wrongful taking and detention of the chattels, because of the exception stated in the section last cited: “But this subdivision does not apply to a claim for damages in an •action to recover a chattel.” Besides, unless the execution can issue upon both demands it can issue upon neither. Bowen v. True, 53 N. Y. 640.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

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

LANDON, J.

The order appealed from must be ¿firmed, because the action was brought in a justice’s court to recover chattels, with damages for their detention. No order of arrest was issued, and therefore, if plaintiff had recovered, he would not have been entitled to an execution against the person of defendant upon account of the chattels (Code Civ. Proc. § 3026); and he was not entitled to an order of arrest under either subdivision 1 or 2 of section 2895, and therefore not entitled to an execution against the person (section 3026), upon account of damages for the wrongful taking and detention of the chattels, because of the exception stated in the section last cited: “But this subdivision does not apply to a claim for damages in an •action to recover a chattel.” Besides, unless the execution can issue upon both demands it can issue upon neither. Bowen v. True, 53 N. Y. 640.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 N.Y.S. 1075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-short-nyappdiv-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack