Case ID: misc_156/html/0215-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Majestic Silk Mills, Inc., Respondent, v. William Raymond Wenrich and Another, Appellants.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    July 9, 1935.
    
      Sidney Rosenzweig, for the appellants.
    
      Ernest H. Breuer, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiff obtained a warrant of attachment against the defendants on the ground that they were non-residents. Personal service was made on one of the defendants outside of the State of New York. Such service is improper and was not authorized -by either section 15 or 21 of the Municipal Court Code, as amended. (Long Island Machinery & Equipment Co., Inc., v. Jacobs, 155 Misc. 794; Mayefsky v. Davis, 139 id. 506; Weil, Inc., v. Popper, 143 id. 684.) The denial of the defendants’ motion to vacate the service was error.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. .

All concur; present, Callahan, Frankenthaler and Shientag, JJ.