Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of George H. Stonebridge, as Executor, etc.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-07-09
Citations: 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 425
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of George H. Stonebridge, as Executor, etc.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 25
Pages: 425–431

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of George H. Stonebridge, as Executor, etc.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed July 9, 1889.)
Arrest of debtor—Insolvency—R. S., part 2, chap. 5, title 1 art. 8, § 12
Where a warrant was issued pursuant to the provisions of section 13, part 2, title 1, chapter 5, Revised Statutes, which provides that whenever trustees, to whom an assignment of the estate of an insolvent debtor has been made, shall show by their oath or other competent proof, to the satisfaction of the proper officer or judge, that there is good reason to believe that the debtor has concealed or embezzled part of his estate, such officer shall issue a warrant commanding any sheritii or constable to have the debtor brought before him for examination, upon an affidavit made upon information and belief, without disclosing the sources of the affiant’s information or the grounds of his belief, Held, improper. Daniels, J., dissenting.
Appeal from order denying motion to vacate a warrant for the examination of John B. Alden, in relation to the property of the New York Book Company.
James B. Dill, for app’lt; Charles E. Hughes, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Van Brunt, P. J.
The warrant to vacate which the motion was made was issued pursuant to the provisions of section 12, part 2, title 1, chapter 5 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that whenever the trustees shall show, by their oath or other competent proof, to the satisfaction of any officer named in the first section of the seventh article of this title, or of any judge of a county court, that there is a good reason to believe that the debtor, his wife or any other person, has concealed or embezzled any part of the estate, etc., such officer or judge shall issue a warrant commanding any sheriff or constable to cause such debtor, his wife or any other person, to be brought before him at such time and place as he shall appoint, for the purpose of being examined.
In the case at bar a warrant was issued upon a petition showing that such petitioner was the receiver of the New York Book Company, and alleges, simply upon information and belief, that one John B. Alden has in his possession certain property of your petitioner as receiver of said book company, and various other allegations, all upon information and belief, with no statement whatever as to what were the sources of the information of the affiant or the grounds of his belief.
I do not think that any officer or judge should be satisfied upon such an allegation that any person has been guilty of concealment or embezzlement; and in order to justify him in issuing the warrant, he must be satisfied of these facts. There is nothing' upon which he can judicially act, except the statement of the affiant; and he has no personal knowledge of the facts and does not pretend to have, and he makes allegations entirely upon information and belief, without giving the court an opportunity to know whether he had any information at all, or any grounds for his belief. And although in certain cases it has been held by the court of appeals that under similar circumstances the judge or officer acquired jurisdiction to act, yet still they have never held as yet that where he has refused to act upon such an utter want of evidence, such refusal was erroneous. And in the case of Tim v. Smith (93 N. Y., 87), it has laid down the rule that the court must be informed upon what the belief of the affiant is based in order that it may judge of the evidence which is produced before it; and certainly a remedy of so harsh a character should not be lightly issued against any citizen.
If an allegation, simply upon information and belief, is • to move the court to act, then it was useless to make it necessary for any application to the court. The party seeking the relief might just as well have had the right to issue the warrant without the intervention of any officer or court, because it is his determination as to whether, from the information he has received or the belief which he has formed as to whether he is entitled to the warrant or not. _
_ He has not deigned to inform the court what information he has or what grounds for his belief, and the court is to act upon his judgment as to whether the information he has obtained justified his belief. The very issuing of this warrant is a preliminary condemnation of the defendant that he has committed a crime; viz.: that of embezzle-, ment or of concealment of. the property of others. Warrants of that description should not be issued except upon evidence which ought to satisfy the court of the evidence of the facts necessary to authorize the issuing of the warrant, and an affidavit upon information and belief simply is evidence of nothing.
The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Brady, J., concurs.