The Superior Court of New York City, 1861

Continental Bank v. De Mott

The Superior Court of New York City · Decided November 30, 1861 · Bosworth, Moncrief, Robertson, White, Woodruff

8 Bosw. 696

Counsel

I. T. Williams, for defendant, (appellant,) insisted that the order of arrest was void in not naming a day certain as the return day thereof; and after argument thereupon, submitted the question upon the merits, without discussing the statements made in the several affidavits used upon the motion., G. W. Parsons, for plaintiffs, (respondents,) claimed that the order was in a form somewhat generally used, and in any event was amendable.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court—Moncrief, J.

An order of arrest which directs the Sheriff “forthwith to arrest the defendants (and hold them to bail in a specified sum,) and to return the order to Barney, Butler & Parsons, plaintiffs’ Attorneys, at then office, Ho. Ill Broadway, Hew York, within five days after the arrest of said defendants,’’ satisfies the requirements of section 183 of the Code.

Upon the merits, I think it is abundantly shown that the transaction in question was “the unlawful neglect and *698refusal of the defendants to pay over and account for moneys received by them in the course of their employment as brokers.

The order made at Special Term must be affirmed.

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