National Park Bank of New York v. Whitmore
New York Supreme Court
This is an appeal by William Whiting, the assignee of James D. Whitmore & Co., from an order made at special term denying a motion to vacate an attachment granted before the assignment. The assignor was not a party to the action, but it appears that on the 8th of January, 1886, the defendants obtained an order upon affidavits requiring the plaintiff to show cause why the attachment should not be vacated. Upon the hearing of the application Messrs.
Read the full summary
This is an appeal by William Whiting, the assignee of James D. Whitmore & Co., from an order made at special term denying a motion to vacate an attachment granted before the assignment. The assignor was not a party to the action, but it appears that on the 8th of January, 1886, the defendants obtained an order upon affidavits requiring the plaintiff to show cause why the attachment should not be vacated. Upon the hearing of the application Messrs. Stewart & Boardman appeared for the defendants, and Mr. Stewart of said firm stated in substance that they also appeared for the assignee as well…
1Opinion of the CourtLawrence, J.
The assignee was not a party to the action, but it is quite apparent that he was fully heard by counsel upon all the arguments, both at special term, general term and in the court of appeals upon the previous motion to vacate the attachment in this case.
In Jay v. De Groot (2 Hun, 205), it was held that where the court allows any person to appear and be heard upon the argument of a motion, in the decision of which he is interested, such hearing is as effectual as though such person had received notice of the motion and had been named as a formal party to it, and he is fully concluded by the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Schrauth v. Dry Dock Savings BankNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1878