Vredenbergh v. Beumont

City of New York Municipal Court

Vredenbergh v. Beumont

2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 298

DecidedMay 15, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 298 (Vredenbergh v. Beumont) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vredenbergh v. Beumont, 2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 298 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

McAdam, Ch. J.

Plaintiff's affidavit in supplementary proceedings charges that the • defendant resides in New York, and does business in that county. The defendant moves to vacate the order, on the ground that he does not reside or do business in ¡New York, but resides in Pennsylvania. In either case, the order for examination is proper {Code, § 2458), andas the affidavits on either side establish the right to the order, though' on different grounds, it cannot be vacated.

The examination, must, therefore, proceed.

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

McAdam, Ch. J.

Plaintiff's affidavit in supplementary proceedings charges that the • defendant resides in New York, and does business in that county. The defendant moves to vacate the order, on the ground that he does not reside or do business in ¡New York, but resides in Pennsylvania. In either case, the order for examination is proper {Code, § 2458), andas the affidavits on either side establish the right to the order, though' on different grounds, it cannot be vacated.

The examination, must, therefore, proceed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vredenbergh-v-beumont-nynyccityct-1886.