
    STEINHARDT et al., Respondents, v. TURK, Appellant.
    (City Court of New York,
    General Term.
    November 2, 1896.)
    Action by Louis Steinhardt and others against Herman Turk.
    Goldfogle & Cohn, for appellant.
    S. Venino, for respondents.
   FITZSIMONS, J.

The attachment granted herein upon its face shows that it was issued for the _ reason that it appears that defendant has assigned and transferred his property with intent to defraud his creditors. Such an attachment cannot stand, for the reason that it fails to state the ground upon which it was issued. See Hale v. Prote, 75 Hun, 13, 26 N. Y. Supp. 950, and Johnson v. Buckel, 65 Hun, 601, 20 N. Y. Supp. 566. The motion to vacate said attachment should have been granted. Order appealed from reversed, and the warrant of attachment herein vacated with costs to appellant.

VAN WYCK, C. J.

I concur in the result that the warrant of attachment should be vacated with $10 costs, and that order be reversed, with costs.  