Case Name: GASHINE, EMORY & CO. v. BAER & EPPLER
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1870-01
Citations: 64 N.C. 108
Docket Number: 
Parties: GASHINE, EMORY & CO. v. BAER & EPPLER.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
GASHINE, EMORY & CO. v. BAER & EPPLER.
An affidavit which alleges, as grounds for an attachment, that the affiant “ believes that the defendants have disposed of their property and are still doing so, with the intent to defraud their creditors also, that “the defendants being largely indebted, if not insolvent, have sold and are selling their large stock of goods, at less than the cost of the same, in the city of New York, and have disposed of other valuable property for cash,” is not only sufficient, but very full and explicit.
(Hughes v. Person, 63 N. C. 548 cited and approved.)
Motion to set aside a warrant of attachment, made before Thomas, J., at January Special Term 1870, of Craven Court.
The motion was based upon the alleged insufficiency of the affidavit, which, in the part impeached, was: “4th, That affiant has reason to believe, and that he does believe, that the defendants have disposed of their property, and are still doing so, with the intent to defraud their creditors; 5th, That the grounds of his belief are, that the defendants being largely indebted, if not insolvent, have sold and are rapidly selling, their large stock of goods at less than the cost of the same in the city of New York, and have disposed of other valuable property recently for cash.”
His Honor refused to make the order applied for, and the defendants appealed.
Manly & Haughton for the appellants.
Oreen and Mason, contra.

Opinion:
Settle, J.
The defendants objected to the sufficiency of the affidavit upon which this attachment is founded.
The objection was properly overruled, as the affidavit is not only sufficient, hut very full and explicit in stating facts, which make out a prima facie case.
The matter is discussed in the late case of Hughes v. Person, 63 N. C. 548, and we will content ourselves with a reference to that case.
Per Curiam:. Judgment affirmed.