Case ID: cal_2/html/0132-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.—Justice Heydenfeldt.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ENOCH REISS, MYER GANS, LEOPOLD REISS, JACQUES REISS, and JAMES REISS, Appellants, v. THOMAS BRADY, Respondent.
    An order improperly dissolving an attachment ivill be reversed.
    Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District.
    The appellants, non-residents, sued the respondent, declaring for goods sold and delivered, in New York, in 1850, to the amount of $5,366.83. The plaintiff’s agent made affidavit that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiffs in that sum, over and above all legal set-offs, and that the defendant was a nonresident. An attachment was issued, and levied on the defendant’s goods. The defendant moved to dissolve the attachment, upon his affidavit, stating that his property had been levied on, and was still held by virtue of said attachment, to the value of $3000, and upwards; and denying that the defendant, at the time of suing out the attachment, was indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum sworn to, or any part thereof; averring that the defendant was a resident of San Francisco; and that, as advised by counsel to whom he had truly stated his case, the defendant had a good defence on the merits. The Court sustained the motion; and ordered that the attachment be set aside, and the levy released, with costs. The plaintiff appealed, on a case stating the above facts.
    
      Botts and Emmett, for the appellant.
    
      Casserly and Eelany, for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.—Justice Heydenfeldt.

No cause for dissolving the attachment being disclosed by the record in this cause, the order to that effect made by the District Court is reversed.