Market National Bank v. Pacific National Bank
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from an order of the General Term «of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, made January 29,1886, the nature of which as well as the material facts are stated in the opinion. The Supreme Court had power summarily to restore to the Pacific Bank what had been taken from it under that court’s erroneous judgment and execution.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the General Term «of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, made January 29,1886, the nature of which as well as the material facts are stated in the opinion. The Supreme Court had power summarily to restore to the Pacific Bank what had been taken from it under that court’s erroneous judgment and execution. (Clark v. Pinny, 6 Cow. 297; Safford v. Stevens, 2 Wend. 158, 164; Bank of U. S. v. Bank, 6 Pet. 17; Code, §§ 1323, 1292.) Application for restitution Was properly made in the first instance to the General Term. (Code, § 2; Murray v. Berdell, 98 N. Y.…
1Opinion of the CourtEarl, J.
The plaintiff attached the property of the defendant. A motion was made at Special Term to set aside the attachment which was denied. Judgment having been entered against the defendant, execution thereon was issued, and the plaintiff collected and received thereon, out of the attached property, upwards of $26,000. The defendant appealed to the General Term from the order of the Special Term refusing to vacate the attachment, and there the order of the Special Term was reversed, and the attachment, judgment and the levy under the attachment were vacated and set aside. The plaintiff appealed…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Carlson v. . WintersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Platt v. WithingtonNew York Supreme Court · 1890