Case ID: misc_14/html/0544-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph H. Sulzbacher, Respondent, v. J. Cawthra & Co., Limited, Appellant.
    (New York Common Pleas
    General Term,
    December, 1895.)
    A motion to reduce the. amount of an attachment is not inconsistent with an appeal from an order denying motion-to vacate it.
    ^ Motion to dismiss appeal.. ' ‘
    
    
      ■Charles Shrauss, for motion.
    , Blurrlenstiel da Hi/rseh, opposed.
   Per Curiam.

Defendant’s motion to reduce the amount for which the attachment was granted is not inconsistent with its appeal fro'm the order denying, the motion to vacate the attachment. Both motions were availed of by the defendant as of right. Hence, this motion for dismissal of the appeal should,bS denied, with ten-dollars costs. ' .. '

, Present: Daly, Ch. J., Bischoff and Pryor, JJ, ■ ■ ,

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.