Bender v. Sherwood
New York Supreme Court
Motion for order requiring defendants to satisfy part of plaintiff’s claim. On the 3d of April, 1856, A. H. Parks made his draft upon the defendants, in favor of the plaintiff, and delivered the same to the plaintiff, whereby he requested the defendants to pay to the plaintiff or his order, the sum of six thousand dollars; and on the same day, the defendants, the said draft having been presented to them, accepted the same as follows: “ accepted, payable at our office, on or…
Read the full summary
Motion for order requiring defendants to satisfy part of plaintiff’s claim. On the 3d of April, 1856, A. H. Parks made his draft upon the defendants, in favor of the plaintiff, and delivered the same to the plaintiff, whereby he requested the defendants to pay to the plaintiff or his order, the sum of six thousand dollars; and on the same day, the defendants, the said draft having been presented to them, accepted the same as follows: “ accepted, payable at our office, on or before 1st "June, from any moneys in our hands belonging to A. H. Parks.” It is alleged in the complaint, that at the…
1Opinion of the Court
Harris, Justice.
“ When the answer of the defendant *260admits part of the plaintiff’s claim to be just, the court, on motion, may order such defendant to satisfy that part of the claim, and enforce the order as it enforces a provisional remedy.” This is the provision under which the plaintiff claims the summary interference of the court. The remedy is extraordinary and severe. It should only be granted in a case clearly within the terms and spirit of the statute. This is not such a case. The defendants do not “ admit a part of the plaintiff’s claim to be just.” All they admit is, that they have…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dodge v. LawsonThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1892
- Du Bois v. Union Dime Sav. Inst.New York Supreme Court · 1895