Johnson v. Hardwood Door & Trim Co.

New York Supreme Court

Johnson v. Hardwood Door & Trim Co.

29 N.Y.S. 797, 86 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 407, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 502, 79 Hun 407

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJune 18, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 29 N.Y.S. 797 (Johnson v. Hardwood Door & Trim Co.) 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

Johnson v. Hardwood Door & Trim Co., 29 N.Y.S. 797, 86 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 407, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 502, 79 Hun 407 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

CULLEN, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying the motion -of the appellant, a junior attaching creditor, to vacate the plaintiff’s attachment. The action is on contract, and the defendant a foreign corporation. The appellant sought to vacate the attachment on proof by affidavit that the original consideration, out of which the obligation in suit sprang, was the purchase by the defendant, from plaintiff's assignor, of certain shares of the defendant’s own-capital stock; and it also, by proof, showed that such a purchase was, by the law of Pennsylvania (the domicile of defendant), void. The motion was denied oh the ground that the court would not, on such an application, pass upon the merits of the action. We think that this position was correct. The general rule is that on a motion to vacate an attachment the court will not try the cause itself, and •determine whether the plaintiff can succeed or not. Brown v. Wigton (Sup.) 18 N. Y. Supp. 490; Paper Co. v. Johnson, Id.; Rowles v. Hoare, 61 Barb. 266. There are some exceptions to this rule, but •this cause plainly is not one. On the contrary, the rule should here [798]*798be given full force. The defendant is a foreign corporation, and has not appeared in the action. If the attachment should be vacated, the plaintiff will not only be deprived of his security, but also of the right to try his cause of action, for the court has acquired no jurisdiction of the defendant but by the attachment. The rights of the appellant can be entirely protected by another course. Under the authority of Lee v. Pfeffer, 25 Hun, 97, he may apply to intervene in this action, and, on being made a defendant, contest the validity of the plaintiff’s claim in the ordinary manner, by answer and trial. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

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

CULLEN, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying the motion -of the appellant, a junior attaching creditor, to vacate the plaintiff’s attachment. The action is on contract, and the defendant a foreign corporation. The appellant sought to vacate the attachment on proof by affidavit that the original consideration, out of which the obligation in suit sprang, was the purchase by the defendant, from plaintiff's assignor, of certain shares of the defendant’s own-capital stock; and it also, by proof, showed that such a purchase was, by the law of Pennsylvania (the domicile of defendant), void. The motion was denied oh the ground that the court would not, on such an application, pass upon the merits of the action. We think that this position was correct. The general rule is that on a motion to vacate an attachment the court will not try the cause itself, and •determine whether the plaintiff can succeed or not. Brown v. Wigton (Sup.) 18 N. Y. Supp. 490; Paper Co. v. Johnson, Id.; Rowles v. Hoare, 61 Barb. 266. There are some exceptions to this rule, but •this cause plainly is not one. On the contrary, the rule should here [798]*798be given full force. The defendant is a foreign corporation, and has not appeared in the action. If the attachment should be vacated, the plaintiff will not only be deprived of his security, but also of the right to try his cause of action, for the court has acquired no jurisdiction of the defendant but by the attachment. The rights of the appellant can be entirely protected by another course. Under the authority of Lee v. Pfeffer, 25 Hun, 97, he may apply to intervene in this action, and, on being made a defendant, contest the validity of the plaintiff’s claim in the ordinary manner, by answer and trial. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.Y.S. 797, 86 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 407, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 502, 79 Hun 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-hardwood-door-trim-co-nysupct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack