Hoorman v. Climax Cycle Co.
New York Supreme Court
Morlón to vacate attachment. ■ The opinion states the case. Charles S. Sinsheimer, for plaintiff. .
1Opinion of the Court
Pbyób, J.
On a motion to vacate an attachment for insufficiency-of the affidavit on which it was obtained, the question is, whether *735a positive averment of facts, of which it is not apparent that the deponent actually had, or from his situation probably had, personal knowledge, be competent proof of those facts.
A warrant of attachment “■ is a summary provisional remedy to take from a debtor the custody of property, and to support the remedy the provisions of the statute in this respect must be substantially observed.” Buhl v. Ball, 41 Hun, 61, 64; Manufacturers’, etc., Bank v. Hall, 60 id. 466,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ladenburg v. Commercial BankNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Crowns v. VailNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Manufacturers' National Bank v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1891
- Mechanics' & Traders' Bank v. LoucheimNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- Kahle v. MullerNew York Supreme Court · 1890
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Einstein v. Climax Cycle Co.New York Supreme Court · 1896