Hill v. Knickerbocker Electric Light & Power Co.
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, New York county. Action by Frederick M. Hill against the Knickerbocker Electric Light & Power Company. Plaintiff obtained an attachment against defendant’s property, which defendant moved to vacate for insufficiency of the papers on which it was granted. The motion was denied, and defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtDaniels, J.
The attachment has been issued for two different demands, ■one owing to the plaintiff directly, and the other acquired by assignment. They have been supported by the plaintiff’s affidavit, and sufficiently so, too, ■as to the demand owing to him personally; but that part of the affidavit devoted to the assigned demand is objected to as insufficient, for the reason that it has not been stated that the facts mentioned in it were or could have been known to him. They are generally stated as facts within the plaintiff’s *518knowledge, and in no sense -depending on his information. But in support of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Crowns v. VailNew York Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by2 opinions
- Billwiller v. MarksCity of New York Municipal Court · 1891
- Hoorman v. Climax Cycle Co.New York Supreme Court · 1896