Case Name: Simon M. Bondy et. al. Resp'ts, v. Abraham Collier, Impleaded, etc., Appl't
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-02-11
Citations: 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 419
Docket Number: 
Parties: Simon M. Bondy et. al. Resp’ts, v. Abraham Collier, Impleaded, etc., Appl’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 65
Pages: 419–420

Head Matter:
Simon M. Bondy et. al. Resp’ts, v. Abraham Collier, Impleaded, etc., Appl’t.
(New York City Court, General Term,
Filed February 11, 1895.)
Arrest—Undertaking.
Where the original undertaking on arrest is defective, the trial court may allow a new undertaking to be filed.
Appeal from an order, denying a motion to vacate an order of - arrest.
Davis & Kaufman, for app’lt; Blumensteil & Kirsch, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Ehrlich, C. J.
The court below directed that the motion to vacate the order of arrest be granted unless the plaintiffs executed and filed a new undertaking as provided by the Code. The paper undertaking having been filed and the court having power to allow the defects in the original undertaking to be amended (Code, § 730; Bellinger v. Gardner, 2 Abb. Pr. 441; Irwin v. Judd, 20 Hun, 562; Beach v. Southworth, 6 Barb. 173; Kissam v. Marshall, 10 Abb. Pr. 424; Marwin v. Marwin, 11 Abb. Pr. [N. S.] 97), the case on appeal stands practically as if the original undertaking had been perfect in the first instance. The affidavit on which the order to arrest was granted sets forth a good cause of action for goods sold to the defendants on the faith of representations which afterwards proved to be untrue. The affidavit sufficiently establishes the fraud, and the sources of knowledge and information clearly appear therein. It follows that the order appealed from must tie affirmed, with costs. All concur.