Majority
p. 85Alphonse Kloh, Resp’t, v. New York Fertilizer Company, App’lt. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department, Filed April 11, 1895.)
Headnote
Attachment — Vacation. 'A motion to vacate an attachment is properly denied, under general rule of practice 37, for failure to specify the irregularity.
Appeal from an order, denying a motion to vacate an attachment made on the papers on which it was granted.
Hugh A. McTernan, for app’lt; Robert L. Stanton, for resp’t.
The order to show cause did not state the grounds nor the irregularity complained of upon which the motion to vacate the attachment was to be made. Under rule 37 of the general rules of practice it is provided that “ when the motion is for irregularity, the notice or order shall specify the irregularity complained of.1’ In the case of Stevens v. Middleton, 14 Weekly Dig. 126, it was held that “ defects in the affidavits used upon ap
p. 86
plication for an attachment, which are not specified in a notice of motion to set aside the attachment, cannot be relied upon in support of the motion.”
The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.