Schenk v. Craig's Chop House, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schenk v. Craig's Chop House, Inc.

263 A.D. 823, 31 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5146

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 1, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 823 (Schenk v. Craig's Chop House, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schenk v. Craig's Chop House, Inc., 263 A.D. 823, 31 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Action for goods sold and delivered and for an account stated. Order of the County Court of Nassau County granting defendant’s motion to vacate an attachment, issued on the ground that the defendant had assigned, disposed of or secreted its property, or was about to do so, with intent to defraud its creditors, because the papers upon which the warrant issued [824]*824were insufficient, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, without costs. The affidavit upon which the warrant of attachment was issued was prima facie sufficient. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

Action for goods sold and delivered and for an account stated. Order of the County Court of Nassau County granting defendant’s motion to vacate an attachment, issued on the ground that the defendant had assigned, disposed of or secreted its property, or was about to do so, with intent to defraud its creditors, because the papers upon which the warrant issued [824]*824were insufficient, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, without costs. The affidavit upon which the warrant of attachment was issued was prima facie sufficient. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 823, 31 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schenk-v-craigs-chop-house-inc-nyappdiv-1941.