Case ID: how-pr_19/html/0412-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Leonard, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUPREME COURT.
    George Schlemmer agt. Benjamin Myerstein.
    Where an attachment has been vacated by the court, after opposition and argument on the merits of the application, another application for the attachment on substantially the same facts, whether before the same or another court, will not be entertained.
    The defendant is not to be continually vexed by the same application; nor are the same or different tribunals to hear and decide upon the same matters more than once.
    
      
      New York Special Term,
    
    
      May, 1860.
    Motion by plaintiff for an attachment against the defendant.
   Leonard, Justice.

Nothing is shown to have occurred or come to the knowledge of the plaintiff, or his agents, to authorize the granting of an attachment, since he applied for and obtained such a warrant in the marine court. The attachment in that court -was vacated after opposition and argument on the merits of the application, on the same state of facts now existing.

The facts have been more fully presented in this court, but they are the same which then existed, and might have been presented with the same care on the hearing of the motion in the marine court. No new case is here presented. The defendant is not to be continually vexed by the same application; nor are the same or different tribunals to hear and decide upon the same matters more than once.

There is also much reason, as I think, to doubt the good faith of the application.

Motion granted. Ten dollars costs of the motion to the defendants, as costs in the action.