Hyperlawhypertext legal database Weill v. Malone 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 953

← Cases

Weill v. Malone

42 N.Y. St. Rep. 953 Court N.Y. Gen. Term Decision date 1891-12-14 English

Decision Majority — Dykman, J. · Dissent — Pratt, J.

Contents
p. 953
Elie Weill et al., App’lts. v. Joseph Malone et al., Resp’ts.

Headnote

Motion for re-argument.
James O. Ohurch, for motion; Frederic S. Barnum, opposed.

This is a motion for a re-argument in this court, but there is no reason why the motion should be granted.

There was no oversight in making the decision, and the motion should be denied, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., concurs.

(dissenting).—Upon the case made by the affidavits of both parties, taken together, the attachment was properly dissolved.

We do not think it clearly appears that any property has been fraudulently disposed of.

Order affirmed, with costs.