Isham v. Ketchum
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL, by the plaintiff in the third and fourth of the above actions, from an order made at a special term denying a motion made by him to discharge the attachments issued in the first and second actions, respectively, on the ground that they were irregularly issued.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sutherland, J.
I am inclined to think that the order appealed from should be affirmed on the merits ; but it is unnecessary to decide that question; for it *44appears to me quite plain that the plaintiff in the last two actions had no standing in court, by petition or otherwise, to make the motion.
[New York General Term, April 2, 1866.
By the Code, (§ 241,) the defendant in an attachment may, in all cases, move to discharge it; but I have not been able to find any precedent for such a motion by a subsequent attachment - creditor on the ground that the prior attach-, ment was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re GriswoldNew York Supreme Court · 1851
3Cited by8 opinions
- Tracy v. . First National Bank of SelmaNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Fawick Corp. v. Alfa Export Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1955
- National Shoe & Leather Bank v. Mechanics' National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Tracy v. First National Bank of SelmaNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Clearwater v. BrillNew York Supreme Court · 1875
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.