Smith v. . Orser
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first district, granting a new trial to the defendant. This is an action for the recovery of personal property and damages for its detention.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first district, granting a new trial to the defendant. This is an action for the recovery of personal property and damages for its detention. The property originally belonged to affirm by the name of Smith, Seckle & Co., composed of Smith, Seckle, Hyneman and Hartman, and formed Hovember, 1854: Seckle soldbut to the plaintiff, Altemus, in July, 1855, and the firm then became Smith, Altemus & Co., Hartman having previously, in May, 1855,- withdrawn. The new firm was then composed of Smith, Altemus and Hyneman, the plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] It can scarcely be doubted, I think, that the ruling of the judge at the circuit, that the sheriff, under attachments against two members of a partnership, consisting of three members, had no right to take and hold possession of the partnership property, was in conflict with well settled law in this State.
The warrant of attachment, issued under section 231 of the Code, expressly required him to attach and safely keep all the property of the defendants, Smith and…
2Cited by14 opinions
- United States v. GraffNew York Supreme Court · 1875
- Yerkes v. . McFaddenNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- The G. ReusensDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1885
- Eighth Nat. Bank of City of N.Y. v. . FitchNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Carples v. Cumberland Coal & Iron Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.