Case ID: ny-st-rep_67/html/0314-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lawrence, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

American Distributing Company, Pl’ff, v. Distilling and Cattle Feeding Company, Def’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, New York Special Term,,
    
    
      Filed February 18, 1895.)
    
    Attachment — Examination.
    A person, who is required to give a certificate under section 650 of the Code, cannot put an end to the examination by denying the defendant’s title to the goods, or by simply saying that he was not indebted to the defendant, against whom the attachment was issued.
    Motion by third person to vacate an order directing .him to appear and be examined.
    
      Holcomb, Martin & Weil, for the motion; Vanderpoel, Cuming & Goodwin, opposed.
   Lawrence, J.

In this case I am of the opinion that the motion to vacate the order directing Lawrence H. Quinn to appear and be examined, under section 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be denied, with costs, on the ground that the certificate given by him to the sheriff is not sufficient to exempt him from such examination. It has frequently been held that a person required to give a certificate under the above section of the Code could not put an end to the examination by denying the defendant’s title to the goods, or by simply saying that he was not indebted to the defendant, against whom the attachment was issued. See Rutter v. Boyd, 3 Abb. N. C. 6 ; Manufacturing Co. v. Gotthold, 1 Civ. Proc. R. 367; Baxter v. Railway Co., 4 Hun, 630; Seligman v. Folk, 13 Civ. Proc. R. 77. The last two' cases were decided by the general term of this department, and, so far as I am aware, have never been reversed. Order signed.