Lenox v. Howland
New York Supreme Court
THE plaintiffs had, under the act authorising proceedings against absent debtors, procured, on the usual oath, an-attachment against the property of the defendants, who resided in Massachusetts.
Read the full summary
THE plaintiffs had, under the act authorising proceedings against absent debtors, procured, on the usual oath, an-attachment against the property of the defendants, who resided in Massachusetts. They, by affidavit, set forth, that they never had any dealings with the plaintiffs, who, as shippers of property on board the ship Ocean, belonging to the defendants, claimed compensation for damage the goods had sustained in consequence of the vessel’s having been run ashore when going up the harbour of Liverpool, by alleged negligence or misbehaviour of the captain, whereas the injury, if any,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per curiam, delivered by
Spencer, J.
We do not think that because the statute points out a particular mode, by which a supersedeas may be obtained, we are ousted of jurisdiction in this state of the case. We conceive that, from the general superintending power of this court, we have a right to examine, whether the attachment has not improvidently issued, and, on this ground, review the order of the judge by whom it was directed. On the present occasion, the plaintiffs have not contradicted the affidavit of the defendants, but, resting their opposition on the matter it details, have reposed…
2Cited by2 opinions
- M'Queen v. Middle-town Manufacturing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1819
- Morgan v. AveryNew York Supreme Court · 1850