North Penn Iron Co. v. Boyce

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dixon, J.

The defendant moves to quash the writ of attachment in this case because of defects in the affidavit on which it was issued. The main defect mentioned is that, although the affiant avers that he is the secretary of the plaintiff corporation, it does not appear that he was the plaintiff’s “agent or attorney.”

Our statute (Pamph. L. 1901, p. 158) authorizes an attachment to issue “where the plaintiff, his agent, or attorney, shall make affidavit,” &e.

In Trenton Banking Co. v. Haverstick, 6 Halst. 171, this court held that like words in the act…