1 This was the title of the unreported action based upon a promissory note. The case discussed here is the auxiliary action in aid of attachment and is reported as Weilamann v.Chase Manhattan Bank, 21 Misc. 2d 1068, 192 N.T.S. 2d 469 (S.Ct., West. Co., 1959).

2 See 3 Carmody-Wait Cycl. of N.Y. Practice 306

3 10 Carmody-Wait, op. cit. supra,193, 4.

4 10 op. cit. supra,133-134.

5 67 N.Y. Supp. 2d 189.

6 10 Carmody-Wait, op. cit. supra,553.

7 Ibid.516. s 283 App. Div. 1033, 131 N.Y.

8 2d 472.

9 176 Misc. 32, 26 N.Y.S. 2d 756 (1941).

10 77 Misc. 626, 31 N.Y.S. 2d 323 (S. Ct., N.Y. Co., 1941), rev'd on other grounds, 265 App. Div. 631, N.Y.S. 2d 229 (1943).

11 I t is possible that Mr. Griffin referred to subdiv. 2 of See. 922 in the manner above mentioned as a result of inadvertent error. The present subdiv. 3 was formerly subdiv. 2 until the amendment of 1940, which deleted former subdiv. 1, added subdiv. 1 and 2, and renumbered subdiv. 2 as 3.

12 See Mexico v.Schmuck, 294 N.Y. 265.

13 There is clearly no legal obstacle to permitting execution of a judgment against the property of a foreign government in the light of the fact that this practice prevails in many countries. Lauterpacht (28 Brit. Yr. Bk. of Int. Law 241 (1951)) mentions seven states, namely, France, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, Egypt and the U.S.S.E., in which such execution is permitted, either unconditionally (Prance, Belgium) or with the consent of some government agency (in other countries). Schmitthoff (7 Int. & Comp. Law Q. 452 (1958)) mentions the same countries with the exception of Egypt. To these countries may be added the Federal Republic of Germany (Amtsgericht, Bonn, June 10, 1960, MDB 1960, p. 933, # 8 7 ) . For a recent Swiss decision, see Eepublic Arabe Unie v.Dame X (86 BGE 23, Feb. 10, 1960; 55 A. J. I. L. 166 (1961)).