Home/New York Supreme Court/Kloh v. New York Fertilizer Co.

Kloh v. New York Fertilizer Co.

33 N.Y.S. 343, 86 Hun 266, 93 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 266, 67 N.Y. St. Rep. 85
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedApril 11, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 33 N.Y.S. 343 (Kloh v. New York Fertilizer 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
Kloh v. New York Fertilizer Co., 33 N.Y.S. 343, 86 Hun 266, 93 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 266, 67 N.Y. St. Rep. 85 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order to show cause did not state the grounds nor the irregularity complained of upon which the motion to vacate the attachment was to be made. Under rule 37 of the general rules of practice it is provided that “when the motion is for irregularity, the notice or order shall specify the irregularity complained of.” In the case of Stevens v. Middleton, 14 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 126, it was held that “defects in the affidavits used on application for an attachment, which are not specified in a notice of motion to set aside the attachment, cannot be relied upon in support of the motion.” The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

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

Related

Brenker v. Dlatt
116 N.Y.S. 575 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1909)
Van Dyke v. New York State Banking Co.
18 Misc. 661 (New York Supreme Court, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 N.Y.S. 343, 86 Hun 266, 93 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 266, 67 N.Y. St. Rep. 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kloh-v-new-york-fertilizer-co-nysupct-1895.