Hyperlawhypertext legal database Restrepo v. Jaramillo 134 N.Y.S. 352

← Cases

Restrepo v. Jaramillo

134 N.Y.S. 352 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1912-03-22 English

Delivered by SCOTT, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 352
RESTREPO et al. v. JARAMILLO et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
March 22, 1912.)

Headnote

Attachment (§ 105[1] )—Aeeidavitv-Requisites—Unliquidated Damages.
Where, in an action for unliquidated damages, plaintiffs’ papers on which they obtained an attachment contained nothing from which the court could determine what damages, if any, plaintiffs were entitled to recover, the papers were insufficient to sustain the writ.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Attachment, Cent. Dig. §§ 276-279; Dec. Dig. § 105.*]
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
p. 353
Action by Luciano Restrepo and another against Alfonso Jaramillo and others. From an order denying defendants’ motion to vacate an attachment, they appeal. Reversed, and motion granted.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, SCOTT, and MILLER, JJ.
Roderick Robertson, for appellants.
Frank D. Pavey, for respondents.

The papers upon which the attachment was granted, and on which the motion to vacate is based, are fatally defective. The action is for unliquidated damages, and there is nothing in the papers upon which the court can determine what damages, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover. James v. Signell, 60 App. Div. 75 , 69 N. Y. Supp. 680 ; Haskell v. Osborn, 33 App. Div. 127 , 53 N. Y. Supp. 361 .

It follows that the order appealed from must be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. All concur.

Cases cited