Case ID: ny_67/html/0393-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      \n      Per Owriam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Liddell, Appellant, v. William Paton, et. al., Respondents.
    This court will not review a decision denying or vacating an order of arrest where, in any view of the facts, such decision can be upheld.
    (Argued November 20, 1876;
    decided November 28, 1876.)
    Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme court in the first judicial department reversing "an order of Special Term which denied a motion, on the part of defendant, to vacate an order of arrest, and vacating said order. (Reported below, 7 Hun, 195.)
    The action was to recover for the alleged conversion of the avails of goods consigned by plaintiff'to defendants for sale, and by them sold, and instead of being remitted according to agreement, converted.
    The General Term reversed the order upon the ground that the preponderance of proof was with the defendants, and established that the parties treated the indebtedness simply as an ordinary liability on contract.
    
      JB&ry. G. IlitoJmigs for the appellant.
    
      S. P. Nash for the respondents.
   Per Owriam.

This court will not review a decision denying or vacating an order of arrest, where, upon any view of the facts, such decision can be upheld. In the case at bar the General Term reversed the order of the Special Term denying the motion to vacate the order of arrest, on the ground that, upon the preponderance of proof, the defendants were entitled to have the order of arrest set aside, and as we are not prepared to say that their decision was wrong in this respect, within the rule laid down, the appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.