Guarantee Savings Loan & Investment Co. v. Moore
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendants, Rachel W. J. Moore and John 0. Shaw, individually, and Archibald T. Moore, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 9th day of November, 1898, denying their motion to vacate an attachment.'
1Opinion of the Court
Barrett, J.:
The attachment here was sought to be vacated solely upon the ground that the complaint and affidavit failed to set forth a cause of action against the defendants named in the warrant. The rule is, *422that upon applications of this character the attachment will be sustained, unless the complaint and affidavits used upon the motion clearly indicate that the plaintiff must ultimately fail. (Romeo v. Garofalo, 25 App. Div. 191; Furbush v. Nye, 17 id. 326; Johnson v. Hardwood Door & Trim Co., 79 Hun, 407.) The question, then, is : Are the plaintiff’s papers here hopelessly bad ?
The claim…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Johnson v. Hardwood Door & Trim Co.New York Supreme Court · 1894
- Sulzbacher v. J. Cawthra & Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1895
- Romeo v. GarofaloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
3Cited by11 opinions
- Bernstein v. Van Heyghen Freres Societe AnonymeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- Lasby v. BurgessMontana Supreme Court · 1930
- Jones v. Hygienic Soap Granulator Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Armstrong & Co. v. IrizarrySupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1921
- In re the Estate of StrandburgNew York Surrogate's Court · 1930
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.