Levy v. . Salomon
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made January 21,1887, which affirmed an order of Special Term, the nature of which and the material facts, are stated in the opinion. The order is appealableto this court. (Code, § 190, subd. 2.) The word “ mandate,” used in the act of 1886, was not intended to cover mesne, hut-only final process. (Washauer v. Webb, 10 Civ.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made January 21,1887, which affirmed an order of Special Term, the nature of which and the material facts, are stated in the opinion. The order is appealableto this court. (Code, § 190, subd. 2.) The word “ mandate,” used in the act of 1886, was not intended to cover mesne, hut-only final process. (Washauer v. Webb, 10 Civ. Pro. 169, 170.) The doctrine of noseitur a sociis applies here. (Chapman v. Forsyth, 2 How. [U. S.] 202, 208; 77 N. Y. 430; 24 Hun, 253; 58 N. Y. 475 ; 31 id. 255 ; 17 Wend, 543;…
1Opinion of the CourtDanforth, J.
The record shows that the plaintiffs sued to recover personal property, and on the ninth of February procured the defendant’s arrest, upon the ground that he had concealed, etc., a part of the chattels, to recover which the action was brought. On the same day the defendant gave a bond for the jail limits and he has since been confined within them. It may be inferred that the cause is at issue, but it has not been tried, nor has any judgment gone against the defendant. Upon an affidavit showing his arrest and continued imprisonment as above stated, the defendant procured an order requiring the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Levine v. . SheaNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Reese v. ReeseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- Reese v. ReeseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- Reese v. ReeseNew York Supreme Court · 1899
- Winton v. WintonNew York Court of Appeals · 1889