Cook v. McDoel
New York Supreme Court
Error to the Oneida C. P. McDoel recovered a judgment ' against Cook & Pierce before a justice of the peace, which the common pleas affirmed on 'certiorari. The suit was commenced by attachment, and the return of the constable stated that he had attached certain property which he described and had made an inventory, and that he served a copy of the attachment and of the inventory on the defendant Cook, on a day named. Nothing was said of any service upon the other defendant.
Read the full summary
Error to the Oneida C. P. McDoel recovered a judgment ' against Cook & Pierce before a justice of the peace, which the common pleas affirmed on 'certiorari. The suit was commenced by attachment, and the return of the constable stated that he had attached certain property which he described and had made an inventory, and that he served a copy of the attachment and of the inventory on the defendant Cook, on a day named. Nothing was said of any service upon the other defendant. Cook appeared and made objections to the return, which were overruled. Pierce did not appear. Issue was then joined and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Jewett, J.
The statute requires that the constable, on the seizure of the property on an attachment, shall immediately make an inventory of it and leave a copy of the attachment and of the inventory, certified by him, at the last place of residence of the defendant; and if he has no place of residence in the county where the goods are attached, to leave such copy and inventory with the person in whose possession the goods were found. (2 R. S. 231, § 31.) By § 36 of the act of 1831 (Stat. p. 404) it is required that every attachment issued by virtue of that act or of the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Watts v. WillettNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1858