Case ID: ny_245/html/0567-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shipman Coal Company, Respondent, v. The Delaware and Hudson Company, Respondent. Joseph Nahas and Edward Nahas, Appellants.
    (Argued May 2, 1927;
    decided May 17, 1927.)
    
      Practice ■— process ■— attachment — motions to vacate order for substituted service without the State and warrant of attachment.
    
    
      Shipman Coal Co. v. D. & H. Co., 219 App. Div. 312, affirmed.
    Appeals, by permission, from two orders of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 4, 1927, which reversed orders of Special Term granting motions to vacate a warrant of attachment and an order for substituted service upon appellants herein without the State and denied said motions.
    The following question was certified on granting to Joseph Nahas permission to appeal: “ The defendant Joseph Nahas, a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, having obtained a judgment in the State of Pennsylvania against the defendant The Delaware and Hudson Company, a New York corporation having its principal place of business in New York county, for damages occasioned by the negligence of the Delaware and Hudson Company occurring in this State, is the judgment or debt represented thereby subject to attachment in the county of New York in an action brought in the Supreme Court of this State by the plaintiff, a Pennsylvania corporation, against Joseph Nahas and The Delaware and Hudson Company, as joint tort feasors to recover damages for an injury to plaintiff’s property in consequence of their negligence arising out of the occurrence for which damages were recovered in the action and in which the judgment attached was rendered? ’ ’ A similar question was certified on permitting the appeal of Edward Nahas.
    
      William D. Bosler for appellants.
    
      H. Barton Farr and Frederic Cunningham, Jr., for plaintiff, respondent.
   Orders affirmed, with costs; question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ.