Schwietering v. Rothschild

26 A.D. 614, 50 N.Y.S. 206
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 1, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 26 A.D. 614 (Schwietering v. Rothschild) 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
Schwietering v. Rothschild, 26 A.D. 614, 50 N.Y.S. 206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

Opinion

Van Brunt, P. J.:

The affidavit upon which the requisition was issued was clearly defective. Section 1695 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the affidavit to -be delivered to the sheriff must particularly describe the chattel to be replevied. The affidavit does not describe the property. It simply refers to some pieces and numbers of yards and other unintelligible numbers. There is nothing whatever to designate the property, or to indicate to the sheriff what property was to be taken under the writ. It is necessary that this provision, should be complied with in order that the sheriff should be informed by the papers presented to him as to the particular property which he is called upon to seize, and that other creditors may be informed as to the claims sought to be asserted by the plaintiff in the replevin action.

We think that the affidavit utterly failed to comply with the provisions of the Code above referred to, and that the motion to set aside the requisition should have been granted.

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Rumsey, Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

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

Related

Croker Fire Prevention Corp. v. Jacobs
235 A.D. 216 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)
Farrell v. Stuart
152 N.Y.S. 986 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Clemmons v. Brinn
36 Misc. 157 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Marshall v. Friend
69 N.Y.S. 1140 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
National Enameling & Stamping Co. v. Kaplan
53 A.D. 96 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Springfield Metallic Casket Co. v. Wielar
28 Misc. 784 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Thorn v. Lazarus
39 A.D. 508 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Springfield Metallic Casket Co. v. Wielar
26 Misc. 863 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 A.D. 614, 50 N.Y.S. 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwietering-v-rothschild-nyappdiv-1898.