Case Name: STEINHARDT et al., Respondents, v. TURK, Appellant
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-11-02
Citations: 41 N.Y.S. 1132
Docket Number: 
Parties: STEINHARDT et al., Respondents, v. TURK, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 41
Pages: 1132–1132

Head Matter:
STEINHARDT et al., Respondents, v. TURK, Appellant.
(City Court of New York,
General Term.
November 2, 1896.)
Action by Louis Steinhardt and others against Herman Turk.
Goldfogle & Cohn, for appellant.
S. Venino, for respondents.

Opinion:
FITZSIMONS, J.
The attachment granted herein upon its face shows that it was issued for the _ reason that it appears that defendant has assigned and transferred his property with intent to defraud his creditors. Such an attachment cannot stand, for the reason that it fails to state the ground upon which it was issued. See Hale v. Prote, 75 Hun, 13, 26 N. Y. Supp. 950, and Johnson v. Buckel, 65 Hun, 601, 20 N. Y. Supp. 566. The motion to vacate said attachment should have been granted. Order appealed from reversed, and the warrant of attachment herein vacated with costs to appellant.