Case ID: nys_72/html/1126-05.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HASCALL, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RUSH, Respondent, v. KLEIN, Appellant.
    (City Court of New York,
    General Term.
    May, 1901.)
    Action by Thomas E. Rush against Mary Klein.
    Menken Bros. (Mortimer M. Men-ken, of counsel), for appellant. J. Harry Hull (Olías. W. Ridgway, of counsel), for respondent.
   HASCALL, J.

Under all the circumstances disclosed hy the papers upon which the attachment was founded, and conforming with the dictum of the court in Blood v. Kane, 130 N. Y. 517, 29 N. E. 994, 15 L. R. A. 490, it seems to us that the order must be left undisturbed. Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements to respondent. Order affirmed, with costs to respondent.

OONLAN and O’DWYER, JJ., concur.