Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 N.Y. St. Rep. 80

Hingston v. Miranda

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 13, 1887

New York Supreme Court · decided 1887-05-13

The following is the affidavit referred to in the opinion: “Horace W. Day, being duly sworn says, that he is a member of the firm of Sgobel & Day, and carries on business in the city of New York, and is the correspondent of Charles Hingston, the plaintiff in this action, who resides in the city of London, England.

Decided 1887-05-13

Per Curiam.

¶1The affidavit on which this attachment was issued was whoUy insufficient as proof of the facts upon which alone the law aEows so harsh a proceeding to be taken by a creditor against his debtor. It contains no sworn evidence that a debt has been created or that the amount claimed is due to the plaintiff over and above all counter-claims, and is no more than a repetition of unsworn statements made by the plaintiff or in his behalf to the person making the affidavit. In fact it does not amount to as much as that, for the statements themselves have not been set forth in the affidavit showing that they had been followed by the person who made it. The case is clearly within those of DeWeerth v. Feldner (16 Abb., 295); Marine National Bank v. Ward (35 Hun, 395); Gribbon v. Bach (35 Hun, 541); and Buhl v. Ball (41 Hun, 61; 2 N. Y. State Rep., 270).

¶2The order appealed from must, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

/9/nystrep/80 · .json · Public domain