Hyperlawhypertext legal database New York Attrition Pulverizing Co. v. Van Tuyl 9 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 373

← Cases

New York Attrition Pulverizing Co. v. Van Tuyl

9 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 373 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Contents

Majority

p. 373
NEW YORK ATTRITION PULVERIZING COMPANY, Respondent, v. ANDREW P. VAN TUYL and another, Appellants.

Headnote

Injunction—secwrity—effect of failure to give.
Where an injunction, was obtained by the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from taking any steps to foreclose a chattel mortgage upon property belonging to the plaintiff; and, on appeal from the order granting the injunction, it appeared that the plaintiff was insolvent, and that no security had been given as required by the Code; held, that the order should be affirmed, on the plaintiff’s filing security in the form required by section 322 of the Code, and by the rules and practice of this court, within ten days after service of a copy of the order to be entered herein; but if such security should not be so filed, that then the order appealed from be reversed.
Appeal from an order granting an injunction restraining the defendants from taking any steps to foreclose a chattel mortgage, and referring the cause to a referee.
Dana & Clarkson, for the appellants.
Cyrus Lawton, for the respondent.

Opinion by Davis, P. J.

Daniels and Lawrence, JJ., concurred.

Order of reference reversed. Injunction continued, if security be filed as directed by opinion; and if not, then order reversed i/n toto, with costs of motion and appeal, together with disbursements.