Case ID: ny-st-rep_9/html/0373-01.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

William Williams, Resp’t, v. Robert Freeman, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed May 13, 1887.)
    
    Practice—Attachment—Not granted in accounting between copartners.
    In an action for an accounting between parties as part owners of a vessel an attachment cannot be had.
    Appeal from order denying motion to vacate attachment.
    
      H. P. Starbuclc, for app’lt; <7. S. Wood, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

The order made upon the first motion to discharge the attachment is not controlling over this appeal, for the case was then heard and decided upon exparte affidavits, which appeared to entitle the plaintiff to an attachment in the action as one for the recovery of a sum of money due upon contract.

Since then the action has been tried and the evidence has been obtained from the witnesses sworn upon the trial, and by their evidence it has been made to appear that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover for money owing upon a contract, but is entitled to maintain an action solely and only for an accounting between himself and the defendant as part owner of the vessel. In such an action an attachment cannot be had. (Thorington v. Merrick, 101 N. Y., 5.)

The order denying the motion to vacate the attachment must be reversed, with the usual costs and disbursements, and an order entered setting aside the attachment.