From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stromberg v. Maister

City Court of New York, General Term
Feb 1, 1901
34 Misc. 810 (N.Y. Misc. 1901)

Opinion

February, 1901.

Rosenthal Rosenthal, for appellant.

Phillips Rippe, for respondent.


The cause of action and the ground of arrest are identical. The appellant contends, that in such a case, the order of arrest will not be vacated on motion, inasmuch as it involves the trial of the merits of the cause of action on affidavits. The rule, however, seems to be established, that an order of arrest may be vacated in the same manner in which it was obtained, that is, on a motion based on affidavits, and that when a motion to vacate an order of arrest is made, although the right to arrest grows out of the cause of action, it is the duty of the court to examine the affidavits and to dispose of the case according to the just preponderance of the proof as contained therein. Corwin v. Freeland, 6 N.Y. 562; Levy v. Bernhard, 2 A.D. 336. On the affidavits submitted on the motion, the preponderance seems to be in favor of defendant. The plaintiff's right to try the merits of his cause of action before a judge and jury still remains, and, if successful, he is entitled to enforce judgment by execution against the defendant's body. In cases of this kind, orders of arrest ought to be applied for in comparatively safe instances and granted with caution by the courts.

Order appealed from affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

CONLAN and McCARTHY, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.


Summaries of

Stromberg v. Maister

City Court of New York, General Term
Feb 1, 1901
34 Misc. 810 (N.Y. Misc. 1901)
Case details for

Stromberg v. Maister

Case Details

Full title:PHILIP STROMBERG, Appellant, v . ISAAC MAISTER, Respondent

Court:City Court of New York, General Term

Date published: Feb 1, 1901

Citations

34 Misc. 810 (N.Y. Misc. 1901)