Thomas v. Dickinson
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, Hew York county. Motion by defendants in the action, Henry A. Dickinson and David I. Johnson, to vacate, an attachment against their property obtained by the plaintiffs, William H. Thomas and Percy Thomas. The motion was made on the ground of insufficiency of the aBidavits on which the attachment was granted, and was denied at special term. Prom the order denying the motion defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtDaniels, J.
The attachment has been issued for two distinct causes of action. The first is upon an assigned demand for the price of goods sold and delivered; the second for the value of goods obtained by fraudulent representations of the financial condition of the defendants, and their practical conversion by them. In this respect the proceeding is clearly irregular, and can ■only be corrected by the dismissal of the attachment as to one of these demands, and as the first is comparatively unimportant in it*s amount, its dismissal would prove the least injurious to the plaintiffs; and if that would…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Steuben County Bank v. . AlbergerNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Mechanics' & Traders' Bank v. LoucheimNew York Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hoorman v. Climax Cycle Co.New York Supreme Court · 1896
- Nevada Bank v. CreganNew York Supreme Court · 1896
- Hoormann v. Climax Cycle Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896