Wood v. Hamilton

New York Court of Common Pleas

Wood v. Hamilton

14 Daly 41, 1 N.Y. St. Rep. 779

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedJune 7, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 Daly 41 (Wood v. Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wood v. Hamilton, 14 Daly 41, 1 N.Y. St. Rep. 779 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam [Present Allen and Bookstaver, JJ.].~—

The facts appearing on the record clearly show, in our opinion, that, at the time the attachments were issued, the defendant had no place of residence in the state of New ’ York, and was a non-resident of this state, within the meaning of section 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure ; and this, although her domicile may have been the state of New York, — on which the evidence is not conclusive. It is certain that, at the time of issuing the attachment, she had no place of abode within this state, nor any place which she could call her home, nor to which she could return on coming to this state. Her intentions as to the future do not affect the question.

[43]*43The defendant at the time of granting the attachment was living in the state of New Jersey, and we think, was, at the time, a resident of that state, under Mayor &c. of New York v. Genet (4 Hun 487; affirmed, 63 N. Y. 646 ; Wallace v. Cassel, 68 N. Y. 370; Murphy v. Baldwin, 11 Abb. N. S. 407).

The orders must therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Orders affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam [Present Allen and Bookstaver, JJ.].~—

The facts appearing on the record clearly show, in our opinion, that, at the time the attachments were issued, the defendant had no place of residence in the state of New ’ York, and was a non-resident of this state, within the meaning of section 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure ; and this, although her domicile may have been the state of New York, — on which the evidence is not conclusive. It is certain that, at the time of issuing the attachment, she had no place of abode within this state, nor any place which she could call her home, nor to which she could return on coming to this state. Her intentions as to the future do not affect the question.

[43]*43The defendant at the time of granting the attachment was living in the state of New Jersey, and we think, was, at the time, a resident of that state, under Mayor &c. of New York v. Genet (4 Hun 487; affirmed, 63 N. Y. 646 ; Wallace v. Cassel, 68 N. Y. 370; Murphy v. Baldwin, 11 Abb. N. S. 407).

The orders must therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Orders affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Daly 41, 1 N.Y. St. Rep. 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-hamilton-nyctcompl-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack