Case ID: silv-sup_5/html/0008-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Barnard, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John M. Canda et al., Respondents, v. Thomas H. Robbins, Appellant.
    
      Supreme Court, Second Department, General Term,
    
    
      December 9, 1889.
    
      Attachment. Vacation.—Where the defendant lives with his wife in a house in New Jersey, is assessed there for personal property, has registered and voted there, and stated that Ms residence is there, he is a non-resident of this state.
    Appeal from order denying motion to vacate a warrant of attachment.
    
      Charles F. Brandt, for appellant.
    
      J. Woolsey Shepard, for respondent.
   Barnard, P. J.

The fact of non-residence is fully established by the papers. The defendant owns a house with the furniture in Brooklyn. William A. Robbins, his son, resided in it. The defendant is a brick maker, residing in KeypoVt, N. J.

The proof of this is made up by a variety of circumstances. He lives with his wife in a house upon the brickyard premises. He is proven to have stated that his place of residence was in New Jersey. He is not assessed for personal property in Brooklyn. He is not registered as a voter there. He is registered as a voter in New Jersey, and voted there in November, 1888.

He is assessed for personal taxes in New Jersey; he has his business letters sent to New Jersey. The point taken that the affidavit made by the voting clerk as to defendant’s voting in New Jersey is not authenticated by a certificate as required for record, is not controlling. There is proof that defendant’s name is on the poll list of the voters who voted at the November election, and the fact is not denied by defendant.

The order should he affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.

Note.

See further, Steele v. Raphael, 59 Hun, 626; Prentice v. Butler, Id. 626; Oliver v. Walter Heywood C. Mfg. Co., 57 Id. 588 Bowman v. Perine, 23 Abb. N. C. 236; Weitkamp v. Loehr, 53 Supr. 79; Dupuy v. Wurtz, 53 N. Y. 556; De Meli v. De Meli, 5 Civ. Pro. 308; Kennedy v. Ryal, 67 N. Y. 379; Wallace v. Castle, 68 Id. 370; Matter of Collins, 64 How. 65; Ricetti v. Mapleston, 22 W. Dig. 215.