
    Daniel E. Van Wickle, Respondent, v. Weaver Coal and Coke Company, Appellant.
    
      Motion to vacate an attachment because of irregularities in the moving papers and ■ the warrant—denied where the irregularities are not specified.
    
    A notice that upon papers named and at a time and place specified the defendant, in an action in which an attachment had been issued, would apply to the court for an order vacating said attachment, is not a sufficient compliance with rule 37 of the General Rules of Practice.
    A failure to comply with rule 37 of the General Rules of Practice, which provides that “When the motion is for an irregularity, the notice or order shall , specify the irregularity complained of,” is a sufficient reason for- refusing to vacate a warrant of attachment for irregularities in the papers on which the warrant was issued and in the warrant itself.
    Appeal by the defendant, Weaver Coal and Coke Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 5th day of October, 1903, denying the defendant’s motion to vacate a warrant of attachment theretofore granted herein and to require the plaintiff to increase the security given by him upon such attachment.
    
      Joseph A. Arnold, for the appellant.
    
      Gordon Gordon, for the respondent.
   McLaughlin, J.:

The defendant appeals from an order denying a motion to vacate a warrant of attachment. The motion to vacate was based upon the papers upon which the order for the attachment was made. It is urged- that the order appealed from should be reversed and the warrant vacated by reason of certain irregularities in the moving papers, as well as in the warrant itself. The notice of motion did not state any grounds of irregularities, and this was a sufficient reason for the denial of the motion. Rule 37 of the General Rules of Practice provides: When the motion is for irregularity, the notice or order shall specify the irregularity complained of.” This notice simply stated that upon papers named, and at a time and place specified, the defendant would apply to the court “ for an order vacating said -attachment.”' This did not comply with- the rule referred to. (Wheeler v. Brady, 2 Hun, 347; Kloh v. New York Fertilizer Co., 86 id. 266; German-American Bank v. Dorthy, 39 App. Div. 166.)

The order appealed from, therefore, must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Van Brunt, P. J., O’Brien, Ingraham and Hatch, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  