Lenox v. Howland
New York Supreme Court
THE court having on a former day*' allowed the plaintiffs to shew that they had such a demand against the defendants as would warrant the attachment. Hoffman now read an affidavit by which it appeared, that their claim was founded on the contract contained in a bill of lading, for the delivery of goods shipped on board the defendants’ vessel.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam delivered by
Livingston, J.
We are to determine, not whether the affidavit now read would have been the proper basis of an attachment, but whether the demand, as now disclosed, is sufficient to support it. Al-thoughby the terms of the oath the creditor is to swear that the party is indebted to him, in the sum of one hundred dollars or upwards, it does not follow that the demand is to be so certain, as to fall within the technical definition of a debt, or as to be susceptible of liquidation, without the intervention of a jury. The law is remedial, and should be so construed as to…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Hale Bros. v. MillikenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Morgan v. AveryNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Phelps v. Columbia Phonograph Broadcasting System, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1929
- Messenger v. DunhamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- Kelley v. ForceSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.