Peck v. Lombard

New York Supreme Court

Peck v. Lombard

29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 63

DecidedSeptember 15, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 63 (Peck v. Lombard) 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

Peck v. Lombard, 29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 63 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.:

This being an action to recover a penalty, the order of arrest was properly granted. The affidavit of the plaintiff showed that a sufficient cause of action existed against the defendant. That only was prerequisite to the right to obtain the order (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 549-556, 557.)

The defendant, upon his affidavit controverting the existence of the cause of action, obtained an order vacating such order of' arrest. We think that the latter order was improperly granted. Where the facts on which the order of arrest is granted are not extrinsic to the cause of action, but the nature of the action alone constitutes the authority for granting it, it should not be vacated [64]*64upon, evidence tending to disprove the canse of action. The merits •of the controversy should not be determined upon affidavits, but .should be allowed to await the trial of the action. (Welch v. Winterburn, 14 Hun, 518.)

Order appealed from reversed, with $10 costs, and disbursements.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Gilbert and Dykman, JJ.

Order vacating order of arrest reversed, with costs and disbursements.

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

Gilbert, J.:

This being an action to recover a penalty, the order of arrest was properly granted. The affidavit of the plaintiff showed that a sufficient cause of action existed against the defendant. That only was prerequisite to the right to obtain the order (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 549-556, 557.)

The defendant, upon his affidavit controverting the existence of the cause of action, obtained an order vacating such order of' arrest. We think that the latter order was improperly granted. Where the facts on which the order of arrest is granted are not extrinsic to the cause of action, but the nature of the action alone constitutes the authority for granting it, it should not be vacated [64]*64upon, evidence tending to disprove the canse of action. The merits •of the controversy should not be determined upon affidavits, but .should be allowed to await the trial of the action. (Welch v. Winterburn, 14 Hun, 518.)

Order appealed from reversed, with $10 costs, and disbursements.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Gilbert and Dykman, JJ.

Order vacating order of arrest reversed, with costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peck-v-lombard-nysupct-1880.