Schieb v. Baldwin
The Superior Court of New York City
Examination, of a third party, under section 236 of the Code, as to property of a debtor against whom' an attachment had been ’ issued as a provisional remedy. This action was commenced March 1st, 1860, and attachment issued as a provisional remedy against the property of the defendant. It did not appear that any thing had been done under the attachment. In December of the same year, judgment in the action was entered against the defendant.
Read the full summary
Examination, of a third party, under section 236 of the Code, as to property of a debtor against whom' an attachment had been ’ issued as a provisional remedy. This action was commenced March 1st, 1860, and attachment issued as a provisional remedy against the property of the defendant. It did not appear that any thing had been done under the attachment. In December of the same year, judgment in the action was entered against the defendant. After entry of judgment, the sheriff, still holding the attachment, applied to George R. Downing who, it was alleged, had property of the judgment-debtor,…
1Opinion of the Court
Monell, J. (after stating the facts).
—It is objected, that judgment having been entered, the attachment is no longerdn force, and the property of the defendant cannot be seized under it. I *470am clearly of the opinion that the objection is well taken. The office of the attachment is to seize under it the property of the . defendant, “ as a security for the satisfaction of such judgment as the plaintiff may recover.” (Code, § 227.) Until judgment is obtained it is lawful for the sheriff to levy upon or attach any property or rights in action of the defendant in- his county. "When judgment is…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Davis v. JenkinsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
- V. G. Pfluke Co. v. PapuliasNew York Supreme Court · 1903