Townsend v. Nebenzahl
New York Supreme Court
This proceeding was instituted by Edward M. Townsend and Henry C. Yale, to cause the arrest of Isaac Nebenzahl and Montague S. Marks, under the provisions of the S til well act.* The affidavit upon which the warrant of arrest, was obtained set out the obtaining of a judgment by the complainants against the defendants ; alleged that the defendants fraudulently contracted the debt for which the judgment was rendered, that their store had been in a state indicating some unusual…
Read the full summary
This proceeding was instituted by Edward M. Townsend and Henry C. Yale, to cause the arrest of Isaac Nebenzahl and Montague S. Marks, under the provisions of the S til well act.* The affidavit upon which the warrant of arrest, was obtained set out the obtaining of a judgment by the complainants against the defendants ; alleged that the defendants fraudulently contracted the debt for which the judgment was rendered, that their store had been in a state indicating some unusual event, and that the losses claimed by them could not have occurred in the time they specified; and it further alleged…
1Opinion of the CourtLawrence, J.
[After stating the facts.]—An examination of the affidavits upon which the orders of arrest and the warrants were issued, shows that the facts on which the plaintiffs proceeded, in both instances, were substantially the same ; and that the fact that orders of arrest had been previously issued in the actions was not stated in the affidavits on which the warrants were issued.
The act of 1831, entitled, “An act to abolish imprisonment for debt and to punish fraudulent debtors ” (L. 1831, c. 300), was not superseded by the provisions of the Code of Procedure relative to arrest and bail (Code of…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Vosburgh v. WelchNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Smith v. LuceNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Finch v. . ParkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Wheaton v. BakerNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Graves v. . WaiteNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Shaul v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.New York Supreme Court · 1928
- Ewart v. SchwartzThe Superior Court of New York City · 1882