Fisher v. Curtis
The Superior Court of New York City
In the first suit- above, an application for an attachment was made to Mason, J., at chambers, under the fourth chapter of title seventh of the amended code. (§ 227.) The defendant, was not a resident of the city and county of New York, and had not been served with the summons issued in the action.
1Opinion of the Court
Mason, J.,
after examining the provisions of the code, and showing that this court had not by the code, and had not acquired by service of the summons, jurisdiction over the defendant, proceeded as follows:
The attachment authorized by section 227 to 243, of the amended code, is a new and important remedy, which did not exist under the old system. Unlike the attachment against absent and absconding debtors, under the revised statutes, which was for th.e benefit of all the creditors, and as to which the jurisdiction of the justices of this court is not taken away; this attachment is for the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bell v. OlmstedWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
- Gould v. BryanThe Superior Court of New York City · 1859