Case ID: ad_141/html/0926-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ingraham, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William T. Clark, as Ancillary Administrator, etc., of James Mulligan, Deceased, Appellant, v. Frank W. Johnston and Others, Copartners, under the Firm Name and Style of Johnston & Grommet Brothers, Respondents.
    Appeal from an order entered on the 24th day of June, 1910, granting a motion to vacate the levy of an attachment.
    Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
   No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J. (dissenting), Clarke, Scott, Miller and Dowling, JJ.

Ingraham, P. J.

(dissenting): I do not think this levy should have been vacated. My view upon a motion of this character is stated in my dissenting opinion in Bridges v. Wade (113 App. Div. 362). Where a question is presented as to whether a levy is sufficient to obtain a lien upon an amount due to the defendant by a party who has been served with a warrant of attachment in this State, I think the question of the sufficiency of the levy should be determined upon a proceeding to enforce it, and not upon a motion to vacate it; but, assuming that a motion to vacate this levy was proper, I think the facts bring this case within Flynn v. White (122 App. Div. 780); that the liability in-favor of the defendant upon which this levy is made arose within this State; that that liability could be enforced within this State, and that the court below was, therefore, in error in vacating the levy. For the reasons stated I think the order should be reversed and the levy reinstated.