Miller v. Burrows

2 Edm. Sel. Cas. 157, 4 How. Pr. 349
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1850·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Edmonds, P. J.:

I am of opinion that the decision of the Special Term in these cases was eminently proper. The question is not whether the defendant is a resident of Indiana, but whether he is “not a resident of this State.” The provision of the Code, section 227, authorizes an attachment “ against a defendant who is not a resident of this State.” The defendant was at one time a resident of Indiana, but that residence he has abandoned, and he has returned with his family to this State; but whether he will take up his residence here, or elsewhere, he is yet undetermined; that is to depend upon his [158]*158prospects of getting into business. Until bis mind shall be settled on that point, until he shall come to a determination, and have a fixed place of habitation, with an intention of staying there, he cannot he said to have a residence any where.

Order of Special Term affirmed, with costs.

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

Miller v. Burrows, 2 Edm. Sel. Cas. 157, 4 How. Pr. 349 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1850).

2 Edm. Sel. Cas. 157 (Miller v. Burrows) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Appraisal under the Transfer Tax Law of the Estate of Grant
11 Mills Surr. 333 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1913)
Pech Manuf'g Co. v. Groves
62 N.W. 109 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1895)