Mills v. Thursby

11 How. Pr. 119
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1853
DocketNo. 4.
StatusPublished

This text of 11 How. Pr. 119 (Mills v. Thursby) 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
Mills v. Thursby, 11 How. Pr. 119 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1853).

Opinion

Edwards, Justice.

The affidavit of the defendant alleges, that a levy was made under an execution issued in New-York, [121]*121but it does not state that the judgment has, in fact, been satisfied, nor that there is any property now held under the levy. The plaintiff’s affidavit alleges that an order was obtained by default, during the accidental absence of his counsel, and that, before it was set aside, the property levied on was withdrawn „ from the effect of the execution.

Under these circumstances, I see no good reason why the plaintiff should be restrained from .enforcing his-levy in Kings county.

Motion denied, with $10 costs.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 How. Pr. 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-thursby-nysupct-1853.