Martin v. Aluminum Compound Plate Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by tlie defendant, the Aluminum Compound Plate Gom■pany, 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 Yorlc on the 9th day of- October, 1899, denying its motion to vacate an attachment against its property, which attachment was ■obtained by the plaintiff upon the ground that, the defendant was a foreign corporation.
1Opinion of the Court
Barrett, J.:
This case is directly within the rule laid down in Einstein v. Climax Cycle Company (13 App. Div. 624) and Hoormann v. Climax Cycle Company (9 id. 579). As in these cases, the plaintiff here is an •assignee of the claim sued upon. The claim is for legal services rendered to the defendant by a firm of attorneys. How this lady, Myra B. Martin, came to know anything about the performance of these services is not disclosed. The papers upon which the attachment here was granted present an extreme illustration of the justice of the rule laid down in the cases cited. In her complaint the *413…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Andrews v. SchofieldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Einstein v. Climax Cycle Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
3Cited by3 opinions
- Foster v. RogersNew York Supreme Court · 1900
- James v. SignellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
- Young v. American BankNew York Supreme Court · 1904