Miller v. Burrows
New York Supreme Court
In this and two other cases attachments were taken out against the defendant as a non-resident. It appeared that he liad formerly resided and married in this State, and had then emigrated to Indiana, where he had been engaged in mercantile business, in which he had failed.
Read the full summary
In this and two other cases attachments were taken out against the defendant as a non-resident. It appeared that he liad formerly resided and married in this State, and had then emigrated to Indiana, where he had been engaged in mercantile business, in which he had failed. After his failure he had returned to this State with his family, and lived in his father-in-law’s family, in the city of New York, while he was looking out for an opportunity of again getting into business; and whether he should finally settle in this State, or elsewhere, was undetermined. On this state of facts he moved to…
1Opinion of the Court
Edmonds, P. J.:
I am of opinion that the decision of the Special Term in these cases was eminently proper. The question is not whether the defendant is a resident of Indiana, but whether he is “not a resident of this State.” The provision of the Code, section 227, authorizes an attachment “ against a defendant who is not a resident of this State.” The defendant was at one time a resident of Indiana, but that residence he has abandoned, and he has returned with his family to this State; but whether he will take up his residence here, or elsewhere, he is yet undetermined; that is to depend upon…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In re the Appraisal under the Transfer Tax Law of the Estate of GrantNew York Surrogate's Court · 1913
- Pech Manuf'g Co. v. GrovesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895