Case Name: John Brodsky agt. Anton Ihms
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1863-07
Citations: 25 How. Pr. 471
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Brodsky agt. Anton Ihms.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 471–475

Head Matter:
NEW YORK COMMON PLEAS.
John Brodsky agt. Anton Ihms.
Where a creditor, to whom a debt was honestly due, made oath to facts, respecting the debtor’s leaving the state to defraud, &c., sufficient to justify the granting of an order for the arrest of the debtor; and on motion to vacate this order, a denial under oath was made by the debtor of all the allegations upon which the order was granted; but a fact then appeared that the debtor had a large amount of personal property in his possession, and was about departing from the state refusing to pay such debt:
Held, that on the appearance of this latter fact, it was entitled to be considered by the judge hearing the motion, as a circumstance sufficient in itself to warrant a disbelief of the affidavit of the debtor, so far as it conflicted with the positively sworn statements' of the creditor.
New York General Term,
July, 1863.
Daly, Brady and Hilton, Judges.
Appeal from an order at special term denying motion to vacate an order of arrest.

Opinion:
By the court, Hilton, J.
The plaintiff claims to recover in this action about $90 due from the defendant, mostly from October, 1860, for cooperage work and materials furnished. On an affidavit showing that the defendant was about removing his property from this state to Alexandria, Virginia,-with intent to defraud his creditors, an order of arrest was granted, which the defendant, on motion, sought to have vacated. It then appeared, however, that, in addition to the conceded fact that the defendant had closed up his business in this city and opened a store in Alexandria, he had a stock of goods on hand amounting to $4,000, and only owed about $1,200, of which $900 had yet to mature ; also, that his wife had taken up her abode in Alexandria, for the purpose of attending to the business there during his absence. To these statements he added a denial of all the allegations in the affidavit on which the order of arrest was granted, but did not dispute his indebtedness on the claim in suit, but averred his intention to pay it.
The ' case, then, upon the affidavits presented itself thus : A creditor, to whom a small claim for labor and materials had long been due, made oath to sufficient to justify the granting of an order for the arrest of his debtor, upon the ground that he was about removing his property from the state with intent to defraud his creditors. On the motion to vacate this order, a denial under oath was made by the debtor of all the allegations upon which the order was granted; but a matetial fact then appeared, which exhibited the character of the party making the denial, and was entitled to be considered by the judge hearing the motion, as a circumstance sufficient in itself to warrant a disbelief of the affidavit of the debtor so far as it conflicted with the positively sworn statements of the creditor. That fact was, that the debtor, with $4,000 of personal property in his possession, was departing from the state, refusing to pay an honest debt of less than $100, and unwilling to apply any portion of this large amount of property to the liquidation of so small a demand.
I think a debtor evincing such a disposition is not entitled to any particular consideration at the hands of a court of justice, much less should his averments be regarded as of equal weight with that of a pursuing creditor, the honesty of whose claim stands undisputed.
The order should be affirmed.