Guilhon v. Lindo
The Superior Court of New York City
In this action, an attachment was issued against the defendant, Santiago Lindo, upon the ground that he had absconded concealed himself to avoid the service of a summons; a motion being made to set aside such attachment, the motion was denied and an appeal is taken from such order. It was conceded that the facts stated in the affidavit, upon which the attachment was granted, • established the grounds upon which it was issued.
Read the full summary
In this action, an attachment was issued against the defendant, Santiago Lindo, upon the ground that he had absconded concealed himself to avoid the service of a summons; a motion being made to set aside such attachment, the motion was denied and an appeal is taken from such order. It was conceded that the facts stated in the affidavit, upon which the attachment was granted, • established the grounds upon which it was issued. The nature of the action sufficiently appears from the opinions.
1Opinion of the CourtMoncrief, J.
An attachment may issue “in an action for the recovery of money.” (Code, § 227.) The affidavit on which the warrant may be issued must state enough to make it appear “that a cause of action exists against such defendant, specifying the amount of the claim, and the grounds thereof, and such facts and circumstances as will establish that the defendant is concealed,” &c., &c. (§ 229.)
Assuming that this action is for the recovery of money, it being an action claiming a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from using their trade mark, &e., (2 Sandf., 599, 619,) there is no averment in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. v. SpearThe Superior Court of New York City · 1849
- Buchanan v. Morrell, O'Hara, Smith & CampbellThe Superior Court of New York City · 1856
3Cited by1 opinion
- Brumback v. WeinsteinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889