Case Name: Bornstein v. Harding
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-10-22
Citations: 16 N.Y.S. 91
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bornstein v. Harding.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 16
Pages: 91–91

Head Matter:
Bornstein v. Harding.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
October 22, 1891.)
Arrest in Civil Cases—Affidavit—Knowledge of Affiant.
An order for defendant’s arrest, which was granted on plaintiff’s affidavit that he procured from plaintiff’s assignor a sale of goods on credit on the faith of his false representations that he was solvent, averring conversations between defendant and such assignor, and the effect they had on the latter’s mind, should be vacated because the facts were not within plaintiff’s personal knowledge. Ehrlich, C. J., dissenting.
Appeal from special term.
Action by Joseph A. Bornstein against Robert L. Harding. There was an order for defendant’s arrest, and he appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate it.
Argued before Ehrlich, C. J., and Van Wyck and Newburgher, JJ.
Carpenter & Mosher, for appellant. Thomas Nolan, for respondent.

Opinion:
Newburgher, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order of arrest herein. It appears that the order of arrest was granted upon an affidavit made by the plaintiff, from which it appears that the defendant, a resident of Portland, Me., on or about the 11th day of March, 1891, purchased from one Julius M. Cohen, plaintiff's assignor, a quantity of cigars, and that the defendant represented himself as being perfectly responsible, and that, on the faith of these representations, said Cohen sold the cigars to the defendant, which said representations were false, and fraudulently made. The motion to vacate was made on the papers upon which the order of arrest was granted. The affidavit of plaintiff did not warrant granting the order of arrest. It is apparent from the affidavit that the facts stated were not within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff, and yet he positively alleges conversations between defendant and plaintiff's assignor, and the effect of such conversations on said assignor's mind. The order appealed from must be reversed, and the motion to vacate order of arrest is granted, with costs.