Case ID: ny_115/html/0665-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Andrews, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles H. Wenzell, Respondent, v. John D. Morrisey, Appellant.
    Where the affiadavits, upon which an attachment was issued, show the existence of the statutory conditions, and so gave the court below power to grant it, an order refusing to vacate it is not reviewable here.
    (Argued June SO, 1889;
    decided October 8, 1889.)
    Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, made February 5,1889, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to vacate an attachment granted herein.
    The following is the mem. of decision:
    “ The courts below have sustained the attachment. Rules for the guidance of the discretion of a court or judge in granting an attachment, and upon which the General Term act in reviewing such discretion, have been announced in many cases. Here the only question is one of jurisdiction. If the affidavits upon which the attachment issued showed the existence of the statutory conditions, it is an end of the appeal. We think they did show a cause of action on contract on money loaned and goods sold to the amount of $5,746.
    “Some of the facts are imperfectly stated and some are left to inference, but the facts to be inferred are the sequence of the facts directly stated.
    “ The opinion of the General Term is full upon the questions debated and elaboration here is unnecessary.
    “ The order should be affirmed.”
    
      Otto Horwitz for appellant.
    
      W. E. Kisselburgh, Jr., for respondent.
   Andrews, J.,

reads mem,, for affirmance.

All concur.

Order affirmed.