The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-11-14

the exists for adding the signature 70 the
copy. proper hat the person who is IN possession
Of property OF tho defendant who indebted him
should know the contents OF the body OF the warrant
and that II issued order that he may DO able
TO conform 20 what IL required Of him. The sheriff
needs than ths, for seeing that the warrant has
not the signature OF the Judge subscribed TO II he would
at once discover that he had authority to exc
cute II, and II he attempted 10 do 10 he would
be tedsor The next objection relative to the
cution Of the warrant is that the notice accompanying
the warrant defective This notice informs tho per
son on whom IL served that '' the property Of the
defendant in the attachment and his effects rights and
shares OF stocks with interest thereon and dividends
therefrom and the debts and credits Of the said defen
in possession OF the sd person, under his
control will be Liable to the attachment, and the said
person is required deliver all such property into the
custody Of the sheriff. without delay, with certificate
thereof ~ have examined all the authort es referred to
by defendants counsel In orser against Grossman
III How r. r., 520l there rs positive decision on
subject The language Of the Court he Court Of Com
mon Pleas) is: at is quest enable whether general
tce the sheriff attaches all tho property In the hands
of the debtor il the defendant the attachment Is su
case bon another point In Kuhlman against Orser
Is Ducr 1921 aud Wilson agt Duncan I'll
bb 81 the Superior Court, undoubtedly, did
decide shat general notice was not sufficient; in other
words tho precise property its nature and amount
must be specified in the notice ] not aware OF any
decision upon this subject rendered by this court any
decision not inclined to follow those in the Superior
Court TO which have above referred To require so
precise specification in all cases would be impractcable
and would deprive many creditor OF the remedy which
this process affords Many plaintiffs ignorant of the
amount even nature Oh properly
ing TO their debtors in the hands of third parties al
though they may have abundant to believe that
there is some property in their hands at the time Of
issuing and serving the attachment He may obtain
the information, 0 compel it in the manner provided
by section hundred aud thirty six; but this is after
the attachment has been issued and notice Of IL
served; and, in the meantime, if the
ing in the cases referred to correct, there il
nothing TO prevent the person on whom the notice Is
served srom delivering the property to- the defendant
or TO prevent debtor Of the defendant from paying him
the debt due. do not think the Legislature intended
to deprive creditors OF the benefit OF this provisional
remedy merely because they ignorant OF the pre-
else nature and amountof fraudulent or nonresident
debtors property in the hands Of third parties, within
the jurisdiction Of the court No serious Inconvenience
by the absence Of this specification In the
tice The copy Of the warrant which tho notice accom-
panies always states the exact claimed; and
cannot see therefore, what embarrassment holder OF
the property be subjected TO by the generality OF the
notice. He knows what the property is and its amounts
and by examining the warrant he easily ascertain
the of the claim The plaintiff in the action re-
qures only that amount with costs and nothing more
or II the holder surrcnders the whole to the sheriff,
and IL exceeds the amount OF the claim,
he exoneratcd from all further liability the property
in the safe custody Of the law In the case before us
Nassau Bank could certainly have suffered wrong
Inconvenience from the want Of this specification.
The officers OF the bank knew the exact depo
sited with them, and they knew equally WE'LL from the
warrant the precise amount OF the claim. In Kuhl-
Orser, TO which have been referred the court
ray that the sheriff is required by section 20 to make
inventory OF the property, and he has sufficient in
formation to enable HIM TO make inventory ne has
sufficient enable him to give notice specifying the
property On TIE contrary the PROVISIONS OF the Coue
presume no such thing. He is not obliged to make
inventory forthwith After serving notice Of the attach
mont he require certificate from the individuals
corporation of the defendants property
and II they refuse furnish II they be required to
do by the order of the Judge and obedience TO such
order may be enforced by attachment In my opinion
the Legislature did not intend that the sheriff should
make this inventory the day. or Immediately after the
day upon which he the attachment did it
qure of him that he should have sufficient information
the time Of the service TO enable him TO give notice
containing exact specification OF the property for the
that il provides method by which he could pro-
this information after the attachment has been is
cd and Of 1t has been given 10 the holder OF the
de.gdants property. consider, therefore, that the
nouceserved In this case was sufficient As TO the OBJ
Jecon at the notice defective in being served only
on tne Nau Bank before the execution and delivery Of
.ne asisne The law requires that the notice should
oe ici VIM .nedcbtor corporation, or individual holding
sucn properly this case the Nassau Bank held the
property .ns su.of $53 600 was actually deposited in
s vaults q. inc ne and have shown that this money
al the sad time peond the defendant Mumford, be
cause .e Transfer "hcs he endeavored to make OF il
was fraudulent, and therefore void Judgment for the
panh IN conformity with the prayer of The complaint