Whitlock v. Roth
New York Supreme Court
This was an appeal from an order made at a special term, discharging the defendant from arrest. The charge was that the defendant had fraudulently contracted the debt in question, in this, that he had falsely represented himself as a partner in the house of Churchill & Co. of Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an order made at a special term, discharging the defendant from arrest. The charge was that the defendant had fraudulently contracted the debt in question, in this, that he had falsely represented himself as a partner in the house of Churchill & Co. of Kalamazoo, Michigan. The allegations of indebtedness and of the representations were positively made in the affidavit on which the order for arrest was made, but there was no allegation of the falsity of the representations except in these words—“ This deponent is informed and believes and expects to prove that said Reth…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Edmonds, J.
It would not do to lay it down as a general rule that an order of arrest could never be granted on information and belief, or without a positive averment of facts, by persons conversant of them. That would be to forbid an arrest in a large class of cases, where it would be manifestly proper; such, for instance, as those where a purchaser from the country makes representations in the city, the truth or falsity of which can be ascertained only in the country, in the vicinity of the purchaser’s residence. Such a rule in that case, especially where the contract of sale is…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Kaeppler v. Red River Valley National BankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1899
- People v. SnaithNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- De Weerth v. FeldnerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1863
- Diad v. ShibleyNew York Supreme Court · 1906
- Rolker v. GonzalezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.