Case ID: misc_25/html/0411-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Schuchman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles Devoe et al., Respondents, v. Louis Selig et al., Appellants.
    (City Court of New York, General Term,
    December, 1898.)
    Action to recover a chattel — Failure to particularly describe the chattels to be replevied.
    An affidavit in replevin which describes the goods as: Eleven cotton linings, 610 1-4 yds,; 9 cotton linings, 459 yds.; 3 6-4 woolen cloth, 201 4-8 yds., is not a description of the chattels, sufficient within the provisions of section 1695 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to enable a sheriff to determine upon what he is required to replevy, and the writ and requisition should be set aside.
    Appeal from an order, denying the defendants’ motion to vacate and set aside a requisition and replevin writ on the ground, that the same fails to comply with section 1695 of the Code of Civil Procedure in that it fails to particularly describe the chattels to be replevied.
    
    M. D. Steuer, for appellants.
    Blumenstiel & Hirsch, for respondents.
   Schuchman, J.

The chattels are described as follows: Eleven cotton linings, 610 1-4 yds.; 9 cotton linings, 459 yds.; 3 6-4 woolen cloth, 2014-8 yds.

This description is not sufficient to enable the sheriff to determine from it, with some degree of accuracy and intelligence, what he was required to replevy. Van Dyke v. N. Y. State Banking Co., 18 Misc. Rep. 661; 77 N. Y. St. Repr. 736; Schweitering v. Rothschild, 84 N. Y. St. Repr. 206.

In the case of McCarthy v. Ockerman, 154 N. Y. 565, the Court of Appeals held the description sufficient, hut that one is different from the one under consideration. Ho amendment of the affidavit can he allowed on this appeal; because the appeal papers .do not show or recite that the same was asked for on the argument of the motion.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs.

Oloott, J., concurs.

Order reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted, with $10 costs.