Case ID: how-pr_4/html/0349-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court, Edmonds, Presiding Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUPREME COURT.
    Stephen Burrows vs. Abraham B. Miller, and two other suits.
    A person who had formerly been a resident of another state (Indiana,) bnt had with his family removed to this state, and was then residing with a relative, while he was looking out for an opportunity to engage in business, and whether he should finally settle in this state or elsewhere, was undetermined, Held, that an attachment was properly issued against him, under § 221 of the code, as a non-resident.
    
    
      New York General Term, May, 1850.
    
    
      Before Edmonds, Edwards and Mitchell, Justices. In this and two other cases, attachments were taken out against the defendant as a non-resident. It appeared that he had formerly resided and married in this state, and had then emigrated to
    
      Indiana, where he had been engaged in mercantile business in which he had failed. After his failure he had returned to this state with his family, and lived in his father-in-law’s family in the city of New York, while he was looking out for an opportunity of again getting into business ; and whether he should finally settle in this state or elsewhere, was undetermined.
    On this state of facts he moved to discharge the attachment, on the ground that he was not a resident of Indiana, but, if anywhere, of this state. From an order at special term, denying the motion, he appealed.
   By the Court, Edmonds, Presiding Justice.

I am of opinion that the decision of the special term in these cases, was eminently proper. The question is not whether the defendant is a resident of Indiana, but whether he is not a resident in this state. The provision of the code (§ 227,) authorizes an attachment “ against a defendant who is not a resident of this state.” The defendant was, at one time, a resident of Indiana; but that residence he has abandoned, and he has returned with his family to this state, but whether he will take up his residence here or elsewhere; he is yet undetermined; that is to depend upon his prospects of getting into business. Until his mind shall be settled on that point, until he shall come to a determination and have a fixed place of habitation, with an intention of staying there, he cannot be said to have a residence anywhere. Order of special term affirmed with costs.