Sanborn v. Elizabethport Manufacturing Co.
New York Supreme Court
' Motion to vacate an ordeiy dismissing an ■ application under section 240 of the Code. In fhis action an attachment was issued against the property of the defendants, as' a foreign corporation, which was levied on moneys belonging to defendants in the hands of the sheriff of Hew York. The defendants gave two days’ notice of an application to be made at chambers, to discharge the attachment, on giving security as required by section 241 of the Code.
Read the full summary
' Motion to vacate an ordeiy dismissing an ■ application under section 240 of the Code. In fhis action an attachment was issued against the property of the defendants, as' a foreign corporation, which was levied on moneys belonging to defendants in the hands of the sheriff of Hew York. The defendants gave two days’ notice of an application to be made at chambers, to discharge the attachment, on giving security as required by section 241 of the Code. On the day specified the plaintiff took an order, in the absence of the defendants, dismissing the application, with $10 costs to plaintiff. The…
1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, J.
—The application by defendants to discharge the attachment under sections 240 and 241" is purely ex parte.
Equally so with the plaintiff’s application for the warrant. The Code nowhere gives the plaintiff any right to except to the sureties offered by the defendants.
The defendants’ attorney, in his affidavit, says, that he gave notice, because judges have usually required the defendant to give some short notice to the plaintiff. If such'requisition has been made, it was not because the plaintiff was entitled thereto, but that the judge desired the plaintiff to be present as amicus -• curies to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rowles v. HoareNew York Supreme Court · 1870