Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of GEORGE EL STONEBRIDGE, Jr., as Receiver of the New York Book Company
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-07
Citations: 60 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 545
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of GEORGE EL STONEBRIDGE, Jr., as Receiver of the New York Book Company.
Judges: Beady, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 60
Pages: 545–552

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of GEORGE EL STONEBRIDGE, Jr., as Receiver of the New York Book Company.
Attachment pursuant to section 12, title 1, chapter 5, pa/rt 2 of the Revised Statutes— not issued upon am affidavit whose allegations rest simply upon information and belief.
Upon an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a warrant for the examination of John B. Alden in relation to the property of the New York Book Company, it appeared that the warrant, to vacate which the motion was made, was issued pursuant to the provisions of section 12, title 1, chapter 5, part 2 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that “ whenever the trustees shall show, by their own oath or other competent proof, to the satisfaction of any officer named in the first section of the seventh article in this title, or of any judge of a County Court, that there is good reason to believe that the debtor, his wife, or any other person has concealed or embezzled any part of the estate, * * * 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 a time and place as he shall appoint for the purpose of being examined.”
In this case a warrant was issued upon a petition showing that the petitioner was the receiver of the New York Book Company, and alleging that one John B. Alden had in his possession certain property of the petitioner as receiver of said book company and also stating various other matters, all simply 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.
Held, that, as the issuing of this warrant was a preliminary condemnation of the defendant, of the commission of a crime, viz., that of embezzlement or of concealing property of others, that warrants of this description should not be issued except upon evidence which ought to satisfy the court of the existence of facts necessary to authorize the issuing of the warrant, and that an affidavit upon information and belief simply was evidence of nothing; that the order appealed from should be reversed. (Daniels, J., dissenting.)
Appeal from an order made at a Special Term held in the county of New York, which was entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on April 25, 1889, denying a motion of John B. Alden to vacate and set aside a warrant for his examination in relation to the property of the New York Book Company, which was issued upon the application of George H. Stonebridge, Jr.,' who was a permanent receiver of the said New York Book Company.
James B. Bill, for the appellant.
Charles E. Hughes, for the respondent.

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 own 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 allegation 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, he is entitled to the warrant or not. He has not deigned to inform the court what information he has, or what are the grounds of his belief, and the court is to act entirely 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 embezzlement 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 existence 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.
Beady, J., concurred.