Case ID: abbn-cas_8/html/0426-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Donohue, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KILLMER v. HOBART.
    
      N. Y. Supreme Court; Special Term,
    April, 1880.
    Jttbisdictiost.—Attachment.—Receivers.
    Receivers appointed, in another State cannot be sued in the courts of this State, although they have in their hands property in this State. And if such a suit is begun and an attachment granted it will be vacated on motion.
    
    
      This was a motion to vacate an attachment granted against the defendants in a suit brought by Nelson B. Killmer against them as receivers appointed by the court of chancery of New Jersey, for the recovery of excessive freight alleged to have been charged by them as such receivers for the transportation of milk to this city.
    
      Chas. B. Alexander, for the motion.
    
      Chas. S. Meyer, opposed.
    
      
       Compare Hibernia, Bank Mechanics, &c. Bank, 31 Hun, 166.
    
   Donohue, J.

The attachment should be vacated as asked. It is not trying the case on affidavits. The plaintiff fixed the character in which the defendants' are sued, and it is not open to question. A judgment here would be against them as receivers, and no lien on property in the hands of another jurisdiction. The attachment is of property as receivers, and would take the very property now being administered by another court. The persons sued are the custodians of the law of another State, and are simply the officers of another court, and sued as such, and to reach what they hold in that why.

Motion granted, with costs.