99 N.Y.S. 340 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1906
This action is to foreclose a lien on a piano forte. Irma Braun and Isidor Braun were named as the defendants, but only the former was served and appeared. The court refused to admit the contract offered by ¿he plaintiff, and- dismissed him at the close of his case. The contract is a printed form with blanks. The parties named therein are the plaintiff and “ Mrs. Isidor Braun part of the second part.” In the only instance where a name was necessary; that of Mrs. Isidor Braun is inserted, and in other blanks the insertions are “she” and “her.” The contract is subscribed “Isidor Braun.”
The appellant also seeks to review an order vacating “ on the papers” a warrant,of seizure issued in this action pursuant to section 138 of the Municipal Court Act (Laws of 1902, chap. 580). I find no authority in the act and l am cited to none that permits such an appeal.
On the merits I fail to find any defect in the papers that justifies such vacation in this case.- The theory of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the papers show none of the extrinsic facts enumerated in subdivision 2 of section 74 of the act as the basis
for an attachment, and I conclude that such was the reason that moved the Municipal Court justice to vacation in .this instance. Section 138 of the act reads: “ Warrant in action for.—r- In an action
The judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.
Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, •costs to abide the event.