Buckingham v. Swezey
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term order vacating attachment. This is an appeal from an order of special term vacating an attachment upon the application of subsequent attaching creditors, Milliken and others. Plaintiffs were copartners in the business of selling domestic cotton goods, Leonard street, in the city of Hew York. Defendants were similarly engaged. The firm of Milliken & Co. were also in the same business in the same city.
Read the full summary
Appeal from special term order vacating attachment. This is an appeal from an order of special term vacating an attachment upon the application of subsequent attaching creditors, Milliken and others. Plaintiffs were copartners in the business of selling domestic cotton goods, Leonard street, in the city of Hew York. Defendants were similarly engaged. The firm of Milliken & Co. were also in the same business in the same city. Plaintiffs brought this action against defendants, and obtained an attachment. Milliken and others also brought another action against the same defendants. The attachment…
1Opinion of the CourtBrady, J.
The attachment obtained by the plaintiffs, Buckingham and Paulson, Jr., was against the property of the defendant Swezey alone, and on the ground that he was an absconding debtor. Milliken and others who were subsequent attaching creditors moved to discharge the attachment and were successful. No opinion was delivered when the motion was decided, but the order declarative of the judgment of the court contained the following, which seems to be a statement of the grounds on which the court rested:
“ And it appearing on the argument that the warrant of attachment was issued only against the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Staats v. . BristowNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
3Cited by1 opinion
- Gomez v. VazquezCity of New York Municipal Court · 1941