Majority
p. 543MACDONALD v. MANICE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. November 8, 1901.) Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and HATCH, McEAUGHEIN, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
Headnote
Attachment—Vacation—Condition—Compliance by Defendant.Where a warrant of attachment is vacated on a condition with which defendant complies, the plaintiff is in no position to demand a reversal of the order.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Action by Ranold H. Macdonald against Caroline E. Manice. From an order vacating a warrant of attachment, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Henry B. Ketcham, for appellant.
John Ii. Henshaw, for respondent.
We deem it unnecessary to consider the question of residence, for the reason that there are two valid objections to the attachment. The first is that the affidavit and complaint upon which the warrant of attachment was granted do not set forth a cause of action against the defendant. Carrier v. Paper Co., 73 Hun, 287 , 26 N. Y. Supp. 414 ; Pomeroy v. Ricketts, 27 Hun, 242 . The second is that, the order herein having been granted upon a condition with which the defendant has complied
p. 544
the plaintiff has obtained an advantage, and is not in a position to demand a reversal of the order.
The order should therefore be affirmed, with $io costs and dis-t bursements.