Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Edm. Sel. Cas. 157

Miller v. Burrows

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1850

New York Supreme Court · decided 1850-05-15

In this and two other cases attachments were taken out against the defendant as a non-resident. It appeared that he liad formerly resided and married in this State, and had then emigrated to Indiana, where he had been engaged in mercantile business, in which he had failed.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1913

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1850-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Edmonds, P. J.:

¶1I am of opinion that the decision of the Special Term in these cases was eminently proper. The question is not whether the defendant is a resident of Indiana, but whether he is “not a resident of this State.” The provision of the Code, section 227, authorizes an attachment “ against a defendant who is not a resident of this State.” The defendant was at one time a resident of Indiana, but that residence he has abandoned, and he has returned with his family to this State; but whether he will take up his residence here, or elsewhere, he is yet undetermined; that is to depend upon his *158prospects of getting into business. Until bis mind shall be settled on that point, until he shall come to a determination, and have a fixed place of habitation, with an intention of staying there, he cannot he said to have a residence any where.

¶2Order of Special Term affirmed, with costs.

/2/edmselcas/157 · .json · Public domain