Case Name: Edgar F. Hale and Another, Appellants, v. John B. Prote and Another, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-01
Citations: 82 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 13
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edgar F. Hale and Another, Appellants, v. John B. Prote and Another, Respondents.
Judges: Present- — YaN Beukt, P. J., O’BbieN and Follett, JJ.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 82
Pages: 13–14

Head Matter:
Edgar F. Hale and Another, Appellants, v. John B. Prote and Another, Respondents.
Attachment — failure to state the ground upon which it is granted.
An attachment -which shows upon its face that it was issued upon the ground that “ the defendants have disposed of their property, and are about to dispose of their property, with intent to cheat and defraud their creditors,” is properly vacated for the reason that it does not state the ground upon which it was granted.
Appeal by the plaintiffs,- Edgar P. Hale and Henry Williams, from an’ order of the Supreme’ Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the city and county of New York on the 20th day of September, 1893, vacating and setting aside an attachment.
Uriah W. TompJcins, for the appellants.
Roger Foster, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per CubiaM:
It appears upon the face of the attachment that it was issued upon the ground that the defendants have disposed of their property, and are about to dispose of their property, with intent to cheat and defraud their creditors.
It is manifest that if the defendants have disposed of their property they could not be about to dispose of it, and that the plaintiffs have not conrplied with the provision of the Code in stating the ground upon which the attachment was issued. It is impossible for us to tell upon which ground, the plaintiff intended to rely, or which ground it is claimed by him his affidavits tended to support. It would seem, therefore, if for no other reason, that this attachment should have been vacated because it did not state the ground upon which it was granted.
This is an error which has been committed before, as is evidenced by the case of Johnson v. Buckel (65 Hun, 601) and the cases there cited.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Present- — YaN Beukt, P. J., O'BbieN and Follett, JJ.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.