Dickey v. Findeisen & Kropf Manufacturing Co.
Herbert L. Dickey v. Findeisen & Kropf Manufacturing Company, Impleaded with Findeisen & Kropf Manufacturing Company of New York, Inc.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Scott, J.:
Plaintiff, who was employed by both of the defendants, one an Illinois corporation, and the other a domestic corporation, sues for damages for what he claims was an illegal discharge.
*862 He has obtained an attachment against the property of the domestic corporation upon the ground that it “is removing and is about to remove property from the State of Hew York, with intent to defraud its creditors.”
The only evidence upon which this is founded is that the said defendant is boxing up its stock in hand, correspondence, records, etc., and has rented its office here, all with a view to moving its business to Chicago. This may serve to prove that it is about to move its property, or part of it, outside the State, but is no proof at all that this is done with a view to defrauding its creditors. (Davis v. Reflex Camera Co., 97 App. Div. 73 .) Indeed it does not appear that there are any creditors except the plaintiff himself.
The order appealed from is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate granted, with ten dollars costs.
Clarke, P. J., Smith, Page and Davis, JJ., concurred.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.