Romeo v. Garofalo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendant, Alfonso Garofalo, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 10th day of November, 1897, denying the defendant’s motion to vacate a warrant of attachment. This action was brought to recover damages for the breach of an alleged warranty contained in a contract for the sale of paste.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam :
We do not.think that the complaint and affidavit here so clearly fail to state a sufficient cause of action as to justify the vacating of the attachment. The general rule is (as was held in Furbush v. Nye, 17 App. Div. 326, and in Johnson v. Hardwood Door & Trim Co., 79 Hun, 407) that the court will not consider the merits of the action upon a motion of this character, and thus determine whether the plaintiff can succeed or not. The attachment will be held' unless the complaint and affidavits clearly indicate that tire plaintiff must ultimately fail. Here the question is whether…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Johnson v. Hardwood Door & Trim Co.New York Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by8 opinions
- Bernstein v. Van Heyghen Freres Societe AnonymeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- Jones v. Hygienic Soap Granulator Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Guarantee Savings Loan & Investment Co. v. MooreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Guarantee Savings, Loan & Investment Co. v. MooreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Reedy Elevator Co. v. American Grocery Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.