Case Name: REYNOLDS et al. v. HORTON
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-02-13
Citations: 22 N.Y.S. 18
Docket Number: 
Parties: REYNOLDS et al. v. HORTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 22
Pages: 18–19

Head Matter:
(67 Hun, 122.)
REYNOLDS et al. v. HORTON.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
February 13, 1893.)
Attachment—Fraud.
Plaintiff sold and delivered to defendant, who was starting in business, $500 worth of goods, on his representation that he was worth $800 in cash; terms half cash, balance in 80 days. On failing to make the first payment, defendant was written to, and replied that he was worth $800, but no pay-ment was made; and, at the expiration of the 30 days, plaintiff’s representative, calling at defendant’s store, was told that he was on his way to plaintiff’s place of business in another city. He did not call there, and inquiries were made of his wife and mother, but they knew nothing of his whereabouts. The cashier of defendant’s bank told plaintiff's representative that, two days before the expiration of the 30 days on which he had bought the goods, defendant drew out all his deposit, amounting to $700. Held, that the facts did not warrant an attachment on the ground that they showed a fraudulent contraction of the debt, and concealment by the debtor to avoid process. Barnard, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Columbia county court.
Action by William T. Reynolds and others against William S. Horton. From an order vacating an attachment on motion of Charles A. Van Dusen, a junior attaching creditor, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.
J. S. Van Cleef, for appellants.
Brownell & Cochrane, for respondent.

Opinion:
DYKMAN, J.
This is an appeal from an order made by the county judge of Columbia county, vacating an attachment against the property of the defendant, Horton. Our conclusion is that the attachment was improperly granted, and the order vacating the same was right. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
PRATT, J., concurs.