Case ID: ny-st-rep_62/html/0307-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gray, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John S. Cronin, App’lt, v. Johanna C. Crooks, Resp't.
    
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed October 16, 1894.)
    
    Attchmbnt—Warrant.
    An alternative statement of the grounds for an attachment in the warrant is fatally defective.
    Appeal from order of the general term of the supreme court in the third judicial department, which affirmed an order of special term vacating a warrant of attachment.
    
      J. K. Long, for app’lt; Frank S. Black, for resp’t.
    
      
      Affirming, 57 St. Rep. 475.
    
   Gray, J.

The warrant of attachment, which was granted in this action, was based upon an affidavit which set forth a certain disposition made by the defendant of her property; which deponent-alleged to have been fraudulent, and whereby she had assigned and disposed of her property with intent to defraud her creditors and to hinder, etc., the plaintiff; in the collection of his demand against her. Without considering the sufficiency of the affidavit, we think it very clear that the warrant was defective. The warrant recited that the defendant “ has assigned and disposed of, or is about to assign or dispose of her property.” The provisions of § 641 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not complied with. They provide, among other things, that the warrant “ must briefly recite the ground of the attachment.” This warrant stated no ground; for to state in the alternative, is to state neither the one nor the other fact. Such an alternative statement of grounds results in a mutual, exclusion.

The general terms of the first and fifth departments have construed the section of the Uode in the same way as has the general term below, Johnson v. Buckel, 65 Hun, 601; 48 St. Rep. 924; Hale v. Prote, 75 Hun, 13; 57 St. Rep. 224; Dintruff v. Tuthill, 43 St. Rep. 704, and we think the construction, which has been thus generally given, is right. Our review of this order is justified by the insertion in it of the grounds for the affirmance. A question of law only' was raised, as to the power of the court to grant such a warrant.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur. • Order affirmed.