Legal Opinion

Chatterton v. Kreitler

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1877PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Motion by plaintiff for an injunction. George W. Chatterton, and David Dodd, copartners’ brought this action against Ulric Kreitler, and August Bergstein, to have a certain assignment, or deed of trust, from Kreitler to Bergstein declared void, and a receiver appointed, an injunction granted, &c.

Read the full summary

Motion by plaintiff for an injunction. George W. Chatterton, and David Dodd, copartners’ brought this action against Ulric Kreitler, and August Bergstein, to have a certain assignment, or deed of trust, from Kreitler to Bergstein declared void, and a receiver appointed, an injunction granted, &c. The complaint alleged the obtaining of a judgment by the plaintiffs against the defendant Kreitler; that execution had been issued and returned unsatisfied; that during the pendency of that action Kreitler had made an assignment of his property by deed of trust to Bergstein, a copy of which was…

1Opinion of the CourtLawrence, J.

I am not prepared to hold that section 603 of the Code of Civil Procedure dispenses with the necessity of an affidavit upon an application for an injunction. If it does not, the verification of the complaint is not sufficient.

Section 603 must be read in connection with section 607 (See also Mr. Throop’s note to § 603). For this reason the motion for an injunction is denied, but, as the point is new, without costs.

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Cushing v. RuslanderNew York Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Clark v. Herbert Booth King & Brother Publishing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API