Case Name: Hodgman v. Barker
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-05-15
Citations: 14 N.Y.S. 574
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hodgman v. Barker.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 14
Pages: 574–578

Head Matter:
Hodgman v. Barker.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
May 15, 1891.)
•1. Attachment—Motion to Vacate—Affidavit—Sufficiency.
In an application by an intervening creditor to vacate a prior attachment the affidavit of the junior attachment creditor, made by its cashier, stated that plaintiff had a just cause of action against defendant by reason of his fraud in procuring moneys on certain forged promissory 'notes made by defendant and transferred by him to plaintiff, whereby plaintiff parted with moneys, and was defrauded in the sum of $21,000. Meld, that the affidavit consisted of allegations of simple conclusions of law, and not allegations of fact, and was therefore insufficient to support the attachment. Lawrence, J., dissenting.
"2. Same—Personal Knowledge of Affiant. ' -
In such case the affidavit is further defective in that it does not appear therefrom that the affiant could have had any personal knowledge as to whether the notes in question were forged or not.
;3. Same—Motion to Vacate—Affidavit of Levy.
Code Civil Proc. N. T. § 682, provides that “a person who has acquired a lien or interest in * * * property after it was attached may at any time * * * apply to vacate or modify the warrant. ” An intervening creditor in an attachment proceeding, moving to vacate plaintiff’s lien, offered no evidence of his own lien except the affidavit of his attorney, stating upon information from a deputy-sheriff that such lien had been acquired by levy. Meld, that the affidavit of the attorney made upon information was insufficient evidence of the existence of the lien, and that the refusal of the deputy to make affidavit was no sufficient excuse for the non-production of bis affidavit, which he might have been compelled to make under Code Civil Proc. N. V. §885, which provides that a party intending to make a motion in a court of record, to be supported by affidavit, may compel the attendance of the intended affiant and the making of an affidavit by him before a referee.
-4. Same—Levy on Realty.
Code Civil Proc. IT. V. § 649, provides that service of an attachment on real estate shall consist in filing with the clerk a notice of attachment, stating the names of the parties to the action, the amount of plaintiff’s claim, and a description of the particular property levied on, etc., to be recorded and indexed by the clerk in the same book and in like manner as a notice of the pendency of an action. Meld, that a mere statement of a deputy-sheriff that a notice of attachment had been filed in the •clerk’s office was insufficient evidence of a levy under an attachment.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Application by the National Broadway Bank to vacate an attachment levied on the property of Stephen B. Barker at the suit of George J?. Hodgman. Plaintiff appeals from an order vacating his attachment. Code Civil Proc. N. Y. § 682, provides that “a person who has acquired alien upon or interest in * * * property after it was attached may at any time '* * * apply to vacate or modify the attachment.” Code Civil Proc. N. Y. § 885, provides that a party intending to make a motion in a court of record, wherein it is necessary to have the affidavit of a person, may obtain an order appointing a referee to take such affidavit, and may compel the attendance of the proposed affiant before the referee for that purpose by subpoena. Code Civil Proc. N. Y. § 649, provides that service of an attachment shall consist in filing with the clerk a notice of attachment, stating the names of the parties to the action, the amount of plaintiff’s claim, and a description of the particular property levied on, etc., to be recorded and indexed by the clerk in the same book and in like manner as a notice of the pendency of an action.
Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Daniels and Lawrence, JJ.
Eugene K. Sackett, for appellant. Kelly & MacRae, ( Wm. E. MacRae, of counsel,) for respondent.

Opinion:
Van Brunt, P. J.
I cannot concur in the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Justice Lawrence, that the order appealed from should be affirmed. It is undoubtedly true that the papers upon which the plaintiff obtained his warrant of attachment disclose no cause of action, as stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Lawrence, but it would appear that the papers upon which the moving party, the National Broadway Bank, obtained its attachment were equally defective. It appears from the warrant that it was obtained upon an affidavit made by the cashier of the National Broadway Bank, in which the allegation simply is that the plaintiff is a domestic corporation, and has a just cause of action against the defendant for injury to personal property by reason of the fraud of defendant in procuring moneys on six forged and fraudulent promissory notes issued in form to the defendant, but fraudulently forged, made, and used by the defendant, and transferred by him for value to the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff parted with moneys, and was defrauded in the sum of $21,800, in which' sum the defendant is justly indebted to the plaintiff over and above all counter-claims known to the plaintiff. These áre allegations of simple conclusions of law, and not allegations of fact showing that a cause of action existed. It further does not appear that the affiant could have had any personal knowledge as to whether the notes in question were forged or not, and, without any evidence to support the assertion, the conclusion that the notes were forged is sworn to. This is wholly insufficient to support the attachment, as has been held in the case of National Broadway Bank against the Same Defendant, 14 N. Y. S. 529, (decided herewith.) It is true that in the case cited there was an attempt to establish the fact that the complaint was before the court on the granting of this attachment; but there is nothing in the papers presented upon this appeal to show that such complaint was before the court, even though, with such complaint before the court, the defects in the affidavit in question would have been remedied. Now, it cannot be that where a party seeks as a subsequent lienor to vacate a prior attachment, and his papers are as defective in establishing the lien as are the papers of the party against whom he moves, he can succeed in his motion. There is another objection to the maintenance of the motion, and that is that, even if the attachment of the bank was properly issued, there is nothing to show that it had ever been levied upon the property of the defendant therein. It is true that it is said that the deputy-sheriff having charge of the warrant of attachment has stated certain things in respect to the levying of the attachment; but in the case cited above the same language was considered, and a mere al legation upon information and belief, where no sufficient excuse is given for not furnishing the affidavit of the party from whom the information is received, was held to be insufficient. In respect to the real estate it is alleged that deponent has examined the records of the county clerk's office, and has found that on the 25th of October, 1890, the notice of attachment in this action was filed, and on the 27th of October, 1890, the notice of attachment was filed in the action of the National Broadway Bank, and that the real property levied upon is the same in both said notices of attachment. This" is a mere statement of a conclusion. What this notice was. we do not know. We are not informed, and whether it was such a notice as complied with the provisions of the Code, so as to make the attachment a lien upon the real estate, is nowhere set forth. We think upon such loosely drawn papers as these no-status for the vacating of a prior lien is established, and that the order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied.