Case Name: Thomas E. Rush, Respondent, v. Mary Klein, Individually and as Administratrix, Etc., of George Geyer, Deceased, Appellant
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-06
Citations: 35 Misc. 854
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas E. Rush, Respondent, v. Mary Klein, Individually and as Administratrix, Etc., of George Geyer, Deceased, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 854–854

Head Matter:
Thomas E. Rush, Respondent, v. Mary Klein, Individually and as Administratrix, Etc., of George Geyer, Deceased, Appellant.
Appeax from order denying appellant’s motion to modify a warrant of attachment.
Menken Brothers (Mortimer M. Menken, of counsel), for appellant.
J. Harry Hull (Chas. W. Ridgway, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Hascall, J.
Hnder all the circumstances disclosed by the papers upon which the attachment was founded, and conforming with the dictum of the court in 130 N. Y. 517 et seq., it seems to us that the order must be left undisturbed.
Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements to respondent
Conlan and O'Dwyer, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed, with costs to respondent