Case ID: nys_8/html/0557-01.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

Claflin et al. v. Silberg.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
    
    January 24, 1890.)
    Attachment—Affidavit—Averment of Pacts.
    Affidavits of an attorney who has no personal knowledge of the facts," and does not disclose the source of his information, and of a plaintiff who merely states that defendant disposed of his property with intent to cheat and defraud his creditors, .without disclosing facts which would justify this statement, are insufficient to support an attachment.
    Appeal from special term, New York county.
    Action by John Claflin and others against Joseph Silberg. Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate an attachment.
    Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Brady and Daniels, JJ.
    
      F. Bien, for appellant. Abram Kling, for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The allegation that the defendant disposed of his property with intent to defraud his creditors rests wholly upon the affidavit of the attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts. His statements depended upon information acquired by him, the sources of which have not been disclosed, and the practice is settled that an attachment cannot be obtained upon such an affidavit. The affidavit made by one of the plaintiffs does not strengthen this part of the case; for, while he states that the defendant assigned and disposed of and secreted his property with intent to cheat and defraud his creditors, no facts are disclosed which would justify this statement. The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the attachment vacated. All concur.