Case Name: Samuel Feldman, Appellant, v. Jacob Siegel et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-03
Citations: 43 Misc. 392
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel Feldman, Appellant, v. Jacob Siegel et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
Samuel Feldman, Appellant, v. Jacob Siegel et al., Respondents.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
March, 1904.)
Municipal Courj: of the city of Mew York—Order vacating an attachment not appealable — When vacation does not affect jurisdiction to hear and determine.
An order of the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, made in an action against joint debtors, vacating an attachment and dismissing the. action, is not appealable in so far as it vacates the attachment but is erroneous in dismissing the action where that is against joint debtors one of whom has been served with the summons, and this because section 90 of the Municipal Court Act'pro- - vides that vacation shall not in such case affect jurisdiction to hear and determine the action.
Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, first district, borough of Manhattan, vacating an attachment and dismissing the action.
Charles Firestone, for appellant.
Goldfogle, Cohn & Lind, for respondents.

Opinion:
Sgott, J.
The order appealed from, in so far as it vacates the attachment, is not appealable. Leavitt v. Katzoff, 43 Misc. Rep. 26; 86 N. Y. Supp. 495. It goes further, however, and dismisses the action. This was not authorized. Section 90, chapter 580, Laws of 190-2, provides that the vacation of the attachment does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the action, where the defendant has appeared generally in the action, or where the summons was served personally upon him, or where judgment may he taken against him as being indebted jointly with another defendant who has been thus summoned, or has thus appeared. In the present case the- claim seems to he against the defendants as copartners, and the return shows that the summons was personally served upon the defendant Siegel. Hence, although the justice may have been right in vacating the attachment, he should have retained the action.
The order must be modified by striking out so much thereof as purports to dismiss the action, which should be remitted to the Municipal Court for disposition. Ho costs of this appeal to either party.
Freedman, P. J., and Blanchard, J., concur.
Order modified. Ho costs.