Tomback & McPhee v. Berkowitz
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District. Action by Tomback & McPhee against Joseph Berkowitz.' From an order of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, vacating an attachment, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
1Per curiam
The affidavits upon which the warrant of attachment was granted do not show facts that point with any degree of clearness to the defendant’s intention to remove property from the county with intent to defraud his creditors, or that he has assigned, disposed of, or secreted, or is about to assign, dispose of, or secrete, property with the like intent. Municipal Court Act, § 74, subd. 2; Delaney v. Bouse, 91 App. Div. 437, 86 N. Y. Supp. 880; Durkin v. Paten, 97 App. Div. 139, 89 N. Y. Supp. 622; Parrott v. Mayer, 31 Misc. Rep. 50, 64 N. Y. Supp. 649.
The order must be affirmed, with costs.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Durkin v. PatenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Delaney v. BouseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Parrott v. MayerNew York Supreme Court · 1900