Peel v. Elliott
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an appeal by the defendant from an order of Justice Davies, refusing to vacate or discharge an order of arrest originally granted by Justice Ingbaham, The latter order was granted on the 15th day of July, 1858, at the time of commencing this action, simultaneously with the issuing of the summons, and was founded upon an affidavit of the plaintiff’s attorney of the facts entitling the plaintiff thereto.
Read the full summary
THIS was an appeal by the defendant from an order of Justice Davies, refusing to vacate or discharge an order of arrest originally granted by Justice Ingbaham, The latter order was granted on the 15th day of July, 1858, at the time of commencing this action, simultaneously with the issuing of the summons, and was founded upon an affidavit of the plaintiff’s attorney of the facts entitling the plaintiff thereto. A motion to vacate the order of arrest was made before Mr. Justice Ingraham, based upon the supposed insufficiency of the affidavit before referred to, which motion was denied, with…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Hogeboom, J.
The question presented for the consideration of the court in this case is, whether the defendant ought to remain under arrest within the provisions of subdivision two of section 179 of the code. That section authorizes the arrest of a party in an action for money received or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied by a public officer, or by a person in a fiduciary capacity, or for any misconduct or neglect in office. The question was argued wholly upon the effect of the judicial proceedings taken in England upon the case, and I do not therefore propose to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Goodrich v. DunbarNew York Supreme Court · 1854
3Cited by2 opinions
- Arthurton v. DalleyNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- City Bank v. LumleyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1865