Dudley v. Goodrich
New York Supreme Court
Motion for additional sureties in an undertaking. The defendants in this action were non-residents, and the plaintiffs obtained an attachment against their property. The defendants appeared, and on giving the required undertaking, executed by two sureties, that the judgment which might be recovered against the defendant should be paid, obtained a discharge of the attachment, and a return of the property.
Read the full summary
Motion for additional sureties in an undertaking. The defendants in this action were non-residents, and the plaintiffs obtained an attachment against their property. The defendants appeared, and on giving the required undertaking, executed by two sureties, that the judgment which might be recovered against the defendant should be paid, obtained a discharge of the attachment, and a return of the property. Upon affidavits showing that the sureties in the undertaking had subsequently become insolvent, the plaintiffs now moved for an order requiring the defendants to give new security.
1Opinion of the CourtIngraham, J.
—The undertaking in this case was given on dis charging an attachment against a non-resident defendant. The plaintiff moves for other sureties, on the ground that one of them is insolvent.
It appears to me that this is one of those cases in which the court has no power to order additional sureties. The property has been discharged from the attachment in the mode pointed out by statute. There is no power to issue another attachment, and the court has no control over the property attached.
The reasons stated by me in The Hartford Quarry Company a. Pendleton (4 Ablotts' Pr. R., 460), are…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Tradesmen's National Bank v. McFeelyNew York Supreme Court · 1875