Steinhardt v. Turk

City of New York Municipal Court

Steinhardt v. Turk

18 Misc. 350

City of New York Municipal Court·Decided October 15, 1896·Published

Opinions

Fitzsimons, J.

The attachment granted herein upon its face shows that it was issued for the reason that it'appears that “ defendant has assigned and transferred his property with intent to defraud his creditors.”

Such an attachment cannot stand, for the reason that it fails to state the ground upon which it was issued. See Hale v. Prote, 75 Hun, 13, and Johnson v. Buckel, 65 id. 601.

[351]*351The motion to vacate said attachment should have been granted.

Order appealed from reversed and the warrant of attachment herein vacated,- with costs to appellant.

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

Fitzsimons, J.

The attachment granted herein upon its face shows that it was issued for the reason that it'appears that “ defendant has assigned and transferred his property with intent to defraud his creditors.”

Such an attachment cannot stand, for the reason that it fails to state the ground upon which it was issued. See Hale v. Prote, 75 Hun, 13, and Johnson v. Buckel, 65 id. 601.

[351]*351The motion to vacate said attachment should have been granted.

Order appealed from reversed and the warrant of attachment herein vacated,- with costs to appellant.

Steinhardt v. Turk, 18 Misc. 350 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1896).

Pincite

18 Misc. 350 (Steinhardt v. Turk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related