
    Weill et al. v. Malone et al.
    
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    December 14, 1891.)
    Motion by defendants (respondents) for reargument. Denied.
    For decision on appeal, see 15 H. Y. Supp. 492.
    
      James C. Church, for the motion. Frederic S. Barnum, opposed.
   Dykman, J.

This is a motion for a reargument in this court, but there is no reason why the motion should be granted. There was no oversight in making the decision, and the motion should be denied, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Pratt, J.

Upon the case made by the affidavits of both parties, taken together, the attachment was properly dissolved. We do not think it clearly appears that any property has been fraudulently disposed of. Order affirmed, with costs.  