Summary
deciding that the complaint sufficiently pleaded a conversion claim where "the warrant of seizure was procured by defendant without any just claim or right thereto"
Summary of this case from Bright View Trading Co., Inc. v. ParkOpinion
February 21, 1924.
William S. Thomson [ Albert Massey of counsel], for the appellant.
Hartwell Cabell [ Blaine F. Sturgis of counsel], for the respondent.
This appeal presents the same questions as are presented in the motion of James Co. v. Second Russian Ins. Co. ( 208 App. Div. 141), with the exception that in this action the defendant did not appear generally. In my opinion that exception can make no difference, because the court clearly has jurisdiction of the defendant, irrespective of such general appearance, and the order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, upon the opinion in the case of James Co. v. Second Russian Ins. Co. ( supra), decided herewith.
CLARKE, P.J., MERRELL, FINCH and MARTIN, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to answer within twenty days from service of order upon payment of said costs.