Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Cow. 39

Knight v. Carey

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1823

New York Supreme Court · decided 1823-05-15

Application was made to make an agreement, to submit to the award of arbitrators, a rule of this Court; and that an attachment issue against Carey Carey, or one of ^ a y . . them, for disobedience thereto.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1894

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1823-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The Court disregarded the first objection, and ordered, the agreement to be made a rule of Court ;(d) but they refused the rule for an attachment.(e) They remarked that here had been no default; performance of the award never having been demanded.

¶2Rule accordingly.

¶3■ (d) Vid. the form of this rule, Caldwell on Arlriir. 477, Am. ed. But the rule there is entitled, which appears to me wrong. Quere, and vid. Se-van v. Sevan, 3 T. R. 601.

¶4 After making the agreement a rule of Court, in order to obtain an attachment, the party must be served with the rule. He is also entitled to a notice of the award, and a demand of performance. The authorities on" this subj. ct, and the manner of proceeding herein, and the practical forms in use to ground an attachment, will be found in Tidds’ Prac. 760, 61, and Tidd's Appendix, adapted to this Court by Mr. Caines, 194, 5. (Vid. also Standley v. Hemmington, 6 Taunt, 561, and Forest's Exch. Rep. 82,83.) The rule for an attachment is never absolute in the first instance. (Chanter v. Driver, 12 Mod. 317. Chaunt v. Smart, 1 Bos. & Pull. 477 ; and vid. Gifford v. Gifford, Forest’s Exch. Rep. 80.)

/1/cow/39 · .json · Public domain