Hyperlawhypertext legal database Norden v. Duke 95 N.Y.S. 940

← Cases

Norden v. Duke

95 N.Y.S. 940 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Delivered by BLANCHARD, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 940
(47 Misc. Rep. 473.)
NORDEN et al. v. DUKE.
(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
June, 1905.)

Headnote

Appeal—Vacating Attachment—Stay.
Vacating an attachment of the property of a foreign corporation does-not annul the warrant of attachment, so that on appeal from the order a stay of proceedings .is proper.
Motion for reargument.
Denied.
For former opinion, see 94 N. Y. Supp. 878 .
Alexander .& Colby, for the motion.
Blandy, Mooney & Shipman, opposed.

This is a motion by the defendant for a re-argument of a motion made by the plaintiffs for a stay of proceedings, on the part of defendant pending an appeal by the plaintiff from an order vacating an attachment of the property of the defendant, a foreign corporation. I have given the papers and the briefs of counsel careful consideration, and I am still of the opinion that the stay 'sought by the plaintiffs was properly granted under section 1351 of the Code-of Civil Procedure. The entry of the order vacating the attachment did not annul the warrant of attachment. Such annulment occurs-only in a case specified in section 3343, subd. 12, of the Code of Civil Procedure. McKean v. National Life Assn., 24 Misc. Rep. 511 , 53 N. Y. Supp. 980 . Motion for reargument denied.

Motion denied.

Cases cited