City of New York Municipal Court, 1898

Weehawken Wharf Co. v. Knickerbocker Coal Co.

Weehawken Wharf Co. v. Knickerbocker Coal Co.
City of New York Municipal Court · Decided February 15, 1898
22 Misc. 559; 49 N.Y.S. 1001

Counsel

Edwards & Bryan, for appellant., James R. Rogers, for respondent.

Weehawken Wharf Co. v. Knickerbocker Coal Co.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The irregularities - complained of should have been specified in the order to show cause why the attachment granted herein should not he vacated. This the appellant failed to do and we think there is nothing for us to review upon this appeal. Rule 27, General Rules of Practice.

If, however, said rule does not apply to this instance, as appellant contends, then we have to say that a careful perusal of the papers upon 'which the said warrant was obtained, convinces us that they contained more than sufficient facts to justify the issuance of said warrant. ■ »

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Present: Fitzsimons, Oh. J., and McCarthy, J.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.