Case Name: George F. Hodgman, Pl'ff, v. Stephen T. Barker, Def't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-05-15
Citations: 38 N.Y. St. Rep. 578
Docket Number: 
Parties: George F. Hodgman, Pl'ff, v. Stephen T. Barker, Def't.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 38
Pages: 578–582

Head Matter:
George F. Hodgman, Pl'ff, v. Stephen T. Barker, Def't.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed May 15, 1891.)
1. Attachment—Motion to vacate.
Where the papers of one applying under Code Civ. Pro., § 682, to vacate an attachment are as defective as those upon which the original attachment was granted, the motion must be denied.
3. Same—Affidavit.
An affidavit in support of an attachment alleged that a bank had been defrauded by forged notes. It showed no personal knowledge by the affiant that the notes were forged. Held, insufficient.
3. Same—Levy.
Upon an application by an, attaching creditor to vacate a prior attachment he failed to state the contents of the notice of attachment and there; was nothing to show that it complied with Code Civ. Pro., § 649, suhd. 1. Held, that there was no proof that the attachment of the moving creditor had ever been duly levied and that as the motion depended upon a matter of strict right it must be denied.
(Lawrence, J., dissents.)
Appeal from, order vacating a warrant of attachment in favor of the plaintiff upon the motion of an alleged subsequent lienor.
E. K. Sackett, for app’lt; W. F. MacRae, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Van Brunt, P. J.
I cannot concur in the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Justice Lawrence that the order appealed from should be affirmed.
It is undoubtedly true that the papers upon which the plaintiff obtained his warrant of attachment disclose no cause of action as stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Lawrence, but it would appear that the papers upon which the moving party, the National Broadway Bank, obtained its attachment were equally defective.
It appears from the warrant that it was obtained upon an affidavit made by the cashier of the National Broadway Bank in which the allegation simply is that the plaintiff is a domestic corporation, and has a just cause of action against the defendant for injury to personal property by reason of the fraud of defendant in procuring moneys on six forged and fraudulent promissory-notes issued in form to the defendant, but fraudulently forged, made and used by the defendant and transferred by him for value to the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff parted with moneys and was defrauded in the sum of $21,300, in which sum the defendant is justly indebted to the plaintiff over and above all counterclaims known to the plaintiff.
These are allegations of simple conclusions of law and not allegations of fact showing that a cause of action existed.
It further does not appear that the affiant could have had any personal knowledge as to whether the notes in question were forged or not, and without any evidence to support the assertion, the conclusion that the notes were forged is sworn to.
This is wholly insufficient to support the attachment, as has been held in the case of the National Broadway Bank against the same defendant, decided herewith.
It is true that in the case cited there was an attempt to establish the fact that the complaint was before the court on the granting of this attachment; but there is nothing in the papers presented upon this appeal to show that such complaint was before the court, even though, with such complaint before the court, the defects in the affidavit in question would have been remedied.
Now it cannot be that where a party seeks as a subsequent lienor to vacate a prior attachment, and his papers are as defective in establishing the lien as are the papers of the party against whom he moves, that he can succeed in his motion.
There is another objection to the maintenance of the motion, and that is that, even if the attachment'of the bank was properly issued, there is nothing to show that it had ever been levied upon the property of the defendant therein. It is true that it is said that the deputy sheriff having charge of the warrant of attachment has stated certain 'things in respect to the levying of the attachment, but in the case cited above the same language was considered, and a mere allegation upon information and belief, where no sufficient excuse is given for not furnishing the affidavit of the party from whom the information is received, was held to he insufficient.
In respect to the real estate it is alleged that deponent has examined the records of the county clerk's office, and has found that the 25th of October, 1890, the notice of attachment in this action was filed, and on the 27th of October, 1890, the notice of attachment was filed in the action of the National Broadway Bank, and that the real property levied upon is the same in both said notices of attachment. This is a mere statement of a conclusion.
What this notice was we do not know; we are not informed ; and whether it was such a notice as complied with the provisions of the Code so as to make the attachment a lien upon the real estate is nowhere set forth.
We think upon such loosely drawn papers as these no status for the vacating of a prior lien is established; and that the order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied.
Daniels, J.
The affidavit of Mr. Kelly stating what he was informed by the deputy sheriff, had been done in the way of attaching the property of the defendant in the two stores, supplied no legal evidence that such was the fact. Information of that description is not proof.
Neither does the statement of the same person that a notice of the attachment had been filed in the action in the clerk's office, prove that any real estate had been attached under either attachment. To make service of an attachment on real estate the law requires that there shall be filed with the. clerk a notice of the attachment stating the names of the parties to the action, the amount of the plaintiff's claim as stated in the warrant, and a description of the particular property levied upon, which must be subscribed by the plaintiff's attorney, adding his office address, and be recorded and indexed by the clerk in the same book, in like manner, as a notice of the pendency of an action. Code Civil Procedure, § 649, subd. 1. And the affidavit wholly fails to prove a compliance with this provision. This motion depended upon a matter of strict right between the moving and the preceding attaching creditor. In the absence of that right, established by proof, the earlier attachment cannot be avoided. It was not so maintained, for the affidavit failed to prove that the attachment of the bank had been levied upon either personal or real property. There was no legal foundation for the motion, and I agree that the order should be reversed and the motion denied.