Case ID: how-pr_60/html/0073-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Merwin, J.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUPREME COURT.
    Seymour Jones agt. Willard Platt.
    
      Order of arrest—JDefects in affidavit, &c., for which, the order wiU be set aside— Code of Civil Procedure, sections 561, 563, 559,813 — Buies 3-35.
    The affidavit upon which the order of arrest was founded was made upon information and belief, without stating the source of such information; the application was made ex parte, and the moving affidavit did not state whether any previous application had been made. The order of arrest and the undertaking were not indorsed with the office address or place of business of plaintiff’s attorney, nor was the order of arrest subscribed by plaintiff’s attorney, and but one surety made affidavit of justification. On motion by defendant’s attorney to vacate order of arrest, plaintiff’s attorney asked leave to amend:
    
      Held, that leave to amend should be denied and motion to vacate should be granted.
    
      Special Term, November, 1880.
    Motion to vacate order of arrest
    The affidavit upon which the order was founded was made upon information and belief, but did not state the sources from which the affiant obtained his information.
    The application for the order of arrest was made exporte. The moving affidavit did not state whether any previous application had been made for such an order (Rule 25).
    The order of arrest and the undertaking upon which it was founded were not indorsed with the office address or place of business of plaintiff’s attorney {Rule 2).
    The order of arrest was not subscribed by the plaintiff’s attorney {Code of Civil Procedure, sections 561 and 562).
    But one surety made affidavit of justification {Code of Civil Procedure, sections 559 and 812).
    
      Backus & Olney and Oswald P. Backus,
    for motion, cited Dreyfus agt. Otis (54 How. Pr., 405); Hecht agt. Silvain (9 W. D., 313; 77 N. Y., 589); Rule 25, Supreme Court; Gouroud agt. Trust (17 Hun, 578); Rule 2, Supreme Court; Kiely agt. Sheehan (76 N. Y., 325); Kilmer agt. Hathorn (78 N. Y., 228); Code Civil Procedure, sections 561 and 562; Thompson agt. Fridenburg (54 How., 519); Code Civil Procedure, sections 559 and 812 ; 54 Howard, 519.
    
      Joseph I. Soples, opposed, asked leave to amend.
   Merwin, J.

Leave to amend denied and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.