From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Devoe v. Selig

City Court of New York, General Term
Dec 1, 1898
25 Misc. 411 (N.Y. City Ct. 1898)

Opinion

December, 1898.

M.D. Steuer, for appellants.

Blumenstiel Hirsch, for respondents.


The chattels are described as follows: Eleven cotton linings, 610 1-4 yds.; 9 cotton linings, 459 yds.; 3 6-4 woolen cloth, 201 4-8 yds.

This description is not sufficient to enable the sheriff to determine from it, with some degree of accuracy and intelligence, what he was required to replevy. Van Dyke v. N.Y. State Banking Co., 18 Misc. 661; 77 N.Y. St. Repr. 736; Schweitering v. Rothschild, 84 N.Y. St. Repr. 206.

In the case of McCarthy v. Ockerman, 154 N.Y. 565, the Court of Appeals held the description sufficient, but that one is different from the one under consideration. No amendment of the affidavit can be allowed on this appeal; because the appeal papers do not show or recite that the same was asked for on the argument of the motion.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs.

OLCOTT, J., concurs.

Order reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted, with $10 costs.


Summaries of

Devoe v. Selig

City Court of New York, General Term
Dec 1, 1898
25 Misc. 411 (N.Y. City Ct. 1898)
Case details for

Devoe v. Selig

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES DEVOE et al., Respondents, v . LOUIS SELIG et al., Appellants

Court:City Court of New York, General Term

Date published: Dec 1, 1898

Citations

25 Misc. 411 (N.Y. City Ct. 1898)
54 N.Y.S. 941

Citing Cases

The Springfield Metallic Casket Co. v. Wielar

We think that the affidavit upon which the requisition of replevin was issued was clearly defective in not…

Marshall v. Friend

March Term, 1901. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred, except McLennan,…