Case ID: ny-sup-ct_95/html/0617-06.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pratt, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Second Department,
    June Term, 1895.
    James E. Boyd and Others, Respondents, v. Joseph H. Miller and Others, Appellants.
    Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursem ents.—
   Pratt, J.:

We think it sufficiently appears that the moving parties have acquired a lien on defendants’ property subsequent to the attachment. The affidavit of Matthews states that the sheriff has taken possession of the property of defendants under the attachment and is now in possession thereof, and that the execution of Matthews was thereafter duly issued and levied “ on the attached property.” That sufficiently describes the property and shows it to be now held subject to the two proceedings. We are thus brought to the question whether the attachment was granted upon sufficient grounds The attachment is stated to issue on the ground that defendants have assigned or disposed of, or are about to assign or dispose of, their property with intent to defraud their creditors. We think that the affidavits contain evidence from which the Special Term judge might fairly draw the inferences necessary to sustain the attachment. The .creditor recites his conversations with defendants; their statements and the contradictions of their sister, to whom they claimed to have transferred their assets, are given at length, and we cannot say that the conclusion was unwarranted that defendants intended to transfer their property in fraud of their creditors. Just what had. been done, and just what was intended to be done, it might not be easy to determine as the statements made were conflicting, but we think enough appeared to sustain the attachment. Order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Dykman, J., concurred; Brown, P. J., not sitting.