Legal Opinion

Sturz v. Fischer

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1896PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Motion to vacate attachment.

1Opinion of the CourtPryor, J.

The application being on notice, to vacate a warrant of attaclurient on the papers upon, which it issued,'the preliminary question is presented, whether the motion, can . - .be entertained by the justice- presiding in. Part II of the Special Term.'

By Rule I, Appellate Division Rules, “litigated motionsn must be heard in Part L By Rule T, “ application fcjr all court orders ex parte,. * * * or where notice is- not. *411required, must be made to the Special Term for the transaction of exporte business.”

An application to vacate an attachment, when founded only on the papers upon which the warrant…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cronin v. . CrooksNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
  2. Van Alstyne v. . ErwineNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
  3. Smith, Perkins & Co. v. WilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. PhillipsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1912
  2. Herzberg v. BoiesenCity of New York Municipal Court · 1897
  3. Lomin Corp. v. KohlheppCity of New York Municipal Court · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API