Gumbes v. Hicks
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendants,. Charles M. Hicks and others^ from an order, made by the county judge of Broome county and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Broome on the 6th day of April, 1906, denying the defendants’ application to vacate a warrant of attachment against their property, which application was inad^ on the papdrs on which said warrant was granted. The warrant of attachment was granted because of the non-residence of the defendants.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the defendants,. Charles M. Hicks and others^ from an order, made by the county judge of Broome county and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Broome on the 6th day of April, 1906, denying the defendants’ application to vacate a warrant of attachment against their property, which application was inad^ on the papdrs on which said warrant was granted. The warrant of attachment was granted because of the non-residence of the defendants. The plaintiffs are also non-residents. The affidavit on which the warrant was granted was made by one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys…
1DissentChester, J.
The claim is that the affidavit on which the attachment was granted is insufficient in two respects : First, because the letters referred to are not annexed, and, second, because it is not stated that the affiant knew with whom he had the conversation over the telephone. ■ He states positively that the conversation was with the plaintiff William J. Conlon in the city of Philadelphia without, it is true, stating in so many words that he knew him, but it is said that the plaintiff Conlon is one of the 'correspondents dn the city of Philadelphia of deponent’s firm, which' before such…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Murphy v. . JackNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Ladenburg v. Commercial BankNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Barrell v. ToddAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901