Strauss v. Vogt
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion to vacate the attachment granted against defendant’s property. The affidavits upon which the attachment was granted show the following facts: The defendant has been, for a number of years, engaged as a manufacturer of braids and trimmings at Ho. 270 Bowery in the city of Hew York.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion to vacate the attachment granted against defendant’s property. The affidavits upon which the attachment was granted show the following facts: The defendant has been, for a number of years, engaged as a manufacturer of braids and trimmings at Ho. 270 Bowery in the city of Hew York. In October, 1892, the defendant told plaintiff that he had a large and valuable stock of goods and valuable machinery ; that he was doing very well, and doing his share of business. That he had some new specialties and expected to make plenty of money the coming season.…
1Opinion of the Court
The following is the opinion of the court below:
McAdam, J,
The affidavit of Egeln, the former bookkeeper of the defendant, makes out a strong case for the plaintiff. The defendant’s stock in July, 1892, was estimated at from $28,000 to $30,000; collectible book accounts, $8,000 to $12,000, and machinery at cost price, $20,000.
Egeln swears that, from his knowledge and observation, the assets were about the same on March 1, 1893. He asserts that the defendant’s business was fairly good, while Strauss testifies it was prosperous. The latter also states that late in March the defendant told him…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilmerding v. MooneyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1860