Tomback & McPhee v. Berkowitz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Tomback & McPhee v. Berkowitz

132 N.Y.S. 772

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided January 5, 1912·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The affidavits upon which the warrant of attachment was granted do not show facts that point with any degree of clearness to the defendant’s intention to remove property from the county with intent to defraud his creditors, or that he has assigned, disposed of, or secreted, or is about to assign, dispose of, or secrete, property with the like intent. Municipal Court Act, § 74, subd. 2; Delaney v. Bouse, 91 App. Div. 437, 86 N. Y. Supp. 880; Durkin v. Paten, 97 App. Div. 139, 89 N. Y. Supp. 622; Parrott v. Mayer, 31 Misc. Rep. 50, 64 N. Y. Supp. 649.

The order must be affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The affidavits upon which the warrant of attachment was granted do not show facts that point with any degree of clearness to the defendant’s intention to remove property from the county with intent to defraud his creditors, or that he has assigned, disposed of, or secreted, or is about to assign, dispose of, or secrete, property with the like intent. Municipal Court Act, § 74, subd. 2; Delaney v. Bouse, 91 App. Div. 437, 86 N. Y. Supp. 880; Durkin v. Paten, 97 App. Div. 139, 89 N. Y. Supp. 622; Parrott v. Mayer, 31 Misc. Rep. 50, 64 N. Y. Supp. 649.

The order must be affirmed, with costs.

Tomback & McPhee v. Berkowitz, 132 N.Y.S. 772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

132 N.Y.S. 772 (Tomback & McPhee v. Berkowitz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related