Kern v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kern v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

5 A.D.2d 863, 172 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6601

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 863 (Kern v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance) 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

Kern v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, 5 A.D.2d 863, 172 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting motion to vacate attachment unanimously reversed on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion denied. The record does not establish the claim of deceit or trickery in connection with either the coming into the State of the merchandise or the creation of the proceeds therefrom. (See Condon Wrapping Mach. Co. v. Dearborn, 181 App. Div. 311, which stated the rule relied upon, and which held that the mere intention to attach in the future, in the absence of deceit or trickery,-was insufficient to warrant the vacatur of the attachment; Siro v. American Express Co., 99 Conn. 95; 37 A. L. R. 1255, annotations.) With regard to the entrance of the merchandise into the State, the record shows that prior to each of the several assignments of proceeds the merchandise had either arrived or was already, presumably, en route.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Order granting motion to vacate attachment unanimously reversed on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion denied. The record does not establish the claim of deceit or trickery in connection with either the coming into the State of the merchandise or the creation of the proceeds therefrom. (See Condon Wrapping Mach. Co. v. Dearborn, 181 App. Div. 311, which stated the rule relied upon, and which held that the mere intention to attach in the future, in the absence of deceit or trickery,-was insufficient to warrant the vacatur of the attachment; Siro v. American Express Co., 99 Conn. 95; 37 A. L. R. 1255, annotations.) With regard to the entrance of the merchandise into the State, the record shows that prior to each of the several assignments of proceeds the merchandise had either arrived or was already, presumably, en route.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 863, 172 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kern-v-john-hancock-mutual-life-insurance-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack