Case ID: ny-sup-ct_88/html/0578-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nason Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. Craft Refrigerating Machine Company, Appellant.
    
      Attachment — affidavit as to the affiant’s being an officer of the plaintiff corporation, supplemented by the complaint.
    
    The objection that no inference can be drawn from the statement that the affiant is the treasurer and general manager of the plaintiff, contained in an affidavit upon which a warrant of attachment was granted, that the affiant was in fact an officer of the corporation at the date of the transaction sued upon, is obviated when the complaint, which accompanies the affidavit, is referred to in it, and forms part of the papers on which the attachment was granted, contains a statement in its verification that the person making such affidavit, as treasurer of the plaintiff, had read the complaint, and “that the same is true of his own knowledge.”
    Appeal by tbe defendant, tbe Craft Refrigerating Machine Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at tbe New York Special Term on tbe 22d day of October, 1894, and entered in tbe office of tbe clerk of tbe county of New York, denying tbe defendant’s motion to vacate tbe warrant of attachment granted in tbe action.
    
      Frederick Seymour, for the appellant.
    
      Charles Be Han't Brewer, for tbe respondent.
   Per Curiam :

Tbe attachment was granted upon an affidavit and complaint, both of which were verified by Samuel Greason on September 5, 1894. Tbe cause of action was for goods sold and services performed during a period of about fifteen months prior to and ending on August 22, 1894. Mr. Greason swears in bis affidavit, used upon tbe attachment, that be is tbe treasurer and general manager of tbe plaintiff. Tbe two objections presented against tbe sufficiency of such affidavit and complaint are that there is no allegation that tbe goods were reasonably worth any sum, and that it is not stated that at the time tbe goods were sold and delivered or the services performed Mr. Greason had any connection with tbe plaintiff corporation.

Tbe first objection is disposed of in the opinion of tbe court below. In regard to tbe second, while it is true that in the affidavit the statement appears that Mr. Greason is the treasurer and general manager of the plaintiff, it is insisted that no inference from this can be drawn that he was such officer at the dates of the transactions sued upon. Whatever force there might be in this is met by the complaint, which accompanied the affidavit and was referred to in it, and was part of the papers on which the attachment was granted, and which in its verification contains the statement that as treasurer .of the plaintiff he has read the complaint, and “ that the same is true of his own knowledge.” The support thus furnished to the affidavit by the complaint in respect to both objections as to the sufficiency of the papers entirely disposes of and answers them.

We think that the order appealed from was right and should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present— Van Brunt, P. J., and O’Brien, J.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.