Case ID: misc_35/html/0854-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hascall, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas E. Rush, Respondent, v. Mary Klein, Individually and as Administratrix, Etc., of George Geyer, Deceased, Appellant.
    Appeax from order denying appellant’s motion to modify a warrant of attachment.
    Menken Brothers (Mortimer M. Menken, of counsel), for appellant.
    J. Harry Hull (Chas. W. Ridgway, of counsel), for respondent.
   Hascall, J.

Hnder all the circumstances disclosed by the papers upon which the attachment was founded, and conforming with the dictum of the court in 130 N. Y. 517 et seq., it seems to us that the order must be left undisturbed.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements to respondent

Conlan and O’Dwyer, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs to respondent