Trow's Printing & Bookbinding Co. v. Hart

85 N.Y. 500, 1881 N.Y. LEXIS 114
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 14, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 85 N.Y. 500 (Trow's Printing & Bookbinding Co. v. Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Trow's Printing & Bookbinding Co. v. Hart, 85 N.Y. 500, 1881 N.Y. LEXIS 114 (N.Y. 1881).

Opinion

Andrews, J.

Sherwood acquired, by his conveyance from Hart, an interest in the land attached, and was, therefore, entitled to move to vacate the attachment, under section 682 of the Code. The right of third persons to move, is not confined to persons who have acquired liens or' interests, by proceedings in invitum, against the defendant in the attachment. The language of the section, does not admit of this limitation; nor does there seem to be any reason why a person who has acquired an interest by voluntary transfer from the defendant, should not be permitted to-stand in his place, in respect to the right to question the validity of an attachment.

The objection that the motion cannot be made by a person who has acquired an interest in part only, of the attached property, is not tenable. The relief in such case, will be limited to vacating the attachment as to such part. The plaintiff in the attachment cannot complain, because the attachment is not set aside in tolo. It is true, he may be subjected to similar applications in behalf of other parties who may have acquired distinct interests, but this is not a legal ground for denying the remedy.

The plaintiff was not entitled to read affidavits in support of the attachment other than those on- which it issued. The affidavit of Sherwood was confined to the purpose of showing his right to move, and of excusing his delay. It did not controvert or avoid any fact stated in the papers upon which the attachment was granted, and did not bear upon the merits. (Steuben Co. Bank v. Alberger, 75 N. Y. 179.)

The order should be affirmed.

All concur, except Forger, Oh. J., absent.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Grassi v. La Sociedad Bancaria Del Chimborazo
213 A.D. 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)
California Packing Corp. v. Kelly Storage & Distributing Co.
188 A.D. 475 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Belmont v. Sigua Iron Co.
80 A.D. 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
Doheny v. Worden
75 A.D. 47 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
Bank of Monongahela Valley v. . Weston
54 N.E. 40 (New York Court of Appeals, 1899)
Nevada Bank v. Cregan
17 Misc. 241 (New York Supreme Court, 1896)
Ladenburg v. Commercial Bank
33 N.Y.S. 821 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
Lewinsohn v. Kent & Stanley Co.
33 N.Y.S. 826 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
Austin v. McLaurin
1 N.Y.S. 209 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1888)
Marine National Bank v. Ward
42 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 395 (New York Supreme Court, 1885)
Smith v. Arnold
40 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 484 (New York Supreme Court, 1884)
Trow's Printing & Bookbinding Co. v. Hart
9 Daly 413 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 N.Y. 500, 1881 N.Y. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trows-printing-bookbinding-co-v-hart-ny-1881.