Owl Cigar Co. v. Lidgerwood

City of New York Municipal Court

Owl Cigar Co. v. Lidgerwood

27 N.Y.S. 932, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 648

CourtCity of New York Municipal Court

DecidedMarch 9, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 N.Y.S. 932 (Owl Cigar Co. v. Lidgerwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Owl Cigar Co. v. Lidgerwood, 27 N.Y.S. 932, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 648 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

NEWBUBGEB, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion made by defendant to vacate a warrant of attachment. The attachment was granted on the ground that the defendant, “being an adult, and a resident of the city of New York, keeps himself concealed therein with the intent to avoid service of the summons, and that, after proper and diligent effort to ascertain the place of sojourn of the defendant, same cannot be ascertained.” It is conceded that the defendant knew he was insolvent, and that he was not to be found, either at his store or at his home. The [933]*933affidavit on which the attachment was granted made out a prima facie case, and the affidavits on the part of the defendant do not show such a state of affairs as would warrant us in vacating the attachment. The order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

NEWBUBGEB, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion made by defendant to vacate a warrant of attachment. The attachment was granted on the ground that the defendant, “being an adult, and a resident of the city of New York, keeps himself concealed therein with the intent to avoid service of the summons, and that, after proper and diligent effort to ascertain the place of sojourn of the defendant, same cannot be ascertained.” It is conceded that the defendant knew he was insolvent, and that he was not to be found, either at his store or at his home. The [933]*933affidavit on which the attachment was granted made out a prima facie case, and the affidavits on the part of the defendant do not show such a state of affairs as would warrant us in vacating the attachment. The order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 N.Y.S. 932, 57 N.Y. St. Rep. 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owl-cigar-co-v-lidgerwood-nynyccityct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack