Case ID: nys_111/html/0499-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. McLAUGHLIN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHITTENDEN v. SAN DOMINGO IMPROVEMENT CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    June 26, 1908.)
    Appeal from Special Term.
    Action by Caroline Sayles Chittenden, formerly Caroline M. Holls, executrix of Frederick W. Holls, against the San Domingo Improvement Company of New York. From an order refusing to vacate or modify an attachment, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    See 110 N. Y. Supp. 148.
    
      Argued before INGRAHAM, McLAUGHLIN, LAUGHLIN, HOUGHTON, and SCOTT, JJ.
    Frank E. Smith, for appellant.
    Frederick W. Hinrichs, for respondent
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

McLAUGHLIN, J.

(dissenting). I dissent, on the ground that the facts stated'are insufficient to show that the.plaintiff is entitled to recover any specific sum to exceed $25,000, and that there is no evidence to show the value of services rendered beyond that amount. '

For that reason, the attachment' should be reduced to $25,000.