Case ID: nys_49/html/1001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(22 Misc. Rep. 559.)
    WEEHAWKEN WHARF CO. v. KNICKERBOCKER COAL CO.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    February 8, 1898.)
    Appeal—Review.
    Where the irregularities complained of are not specified in the order to show cause why the attachment granted should not be vacated, there is nothing to review on appeal, under Gen. Rules Prac. No. 27.
    Appeal from special term.
    Action by the Weehawken Wharf Company against the Knickerbocker Coal Company. From an order denying a motion to vacate the attachment, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    ' Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and MCCARTHY, J.
    Edwards & Bryan, for appellant.
    James R. Rogers, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The irregularities complained of should have been specified in the order to show cause why the attachment granted herein should not be vacated. This the appellant failed to do, and we think there is nothing for us to review upon this appeal. Rule 27, Gen. Rules Prac. If, however, said rule does not apply to this instance, as appellant contends, then we have to say that a care-, fnl perusal of the papers upon which the said warrant was obtained convinces us that they contained more than sufficient facts to justify the issuance of said warrant.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.