F. Mayer Boot & Shoe Co. v. Ferguson
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Cass county; Pollock, J. Action by the F. Mayer Boot & Shoe Co. against Robert J. Ferguson. From an order denying motion to dissolve an attachment, defendant appeals. Affidavit is fatally deféctive if it shows that affiant had no personal knowledge of the facts sworn to.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Cass county; Pollock, J. Action by the F. Mayer Boot & Shoe Co. against Robert J. Ferguson. From an order denying motion to dissolve an attachment, defendant appeals. Affidavit is fatally deféctive if it shows that affiant had no personal knowledge of the facts sworn to. Tim v. Smith, 93 N. Y. 87 ; Mech. & Traders Bank v. Louchein, et ah, 55 Hun. 396; Thomas v. Dickinson, 11 N. Y. Supp. 436; O’Reilly v. Freel, 37 How. 272; Jones v. Hoefs, 14 N. D. 232, 103 N. W. 751; Sonnesyn v. Aiken, 12 N. D. 227, 97 N. W. 557. Failure to deny truth of affidavit does not raise…
1Opinion of the CourtFisk, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to dissolve an attachment. The ground of the motion was the alleged insufficiency of the affidavit upon which the warrant of attachment was issued. The particular ground of the attack was and is that James W. Glassford, the person who made said affidavit, possessed no personal knowledge of the facts therein sworn to by him. The affidavit is positive, and not upon information and belief; and, in substance, affiant states that he is one of the attorneys for plaintiff, and that the action was brought for the recovery of the purchase price of goods…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Wheeler v. FarmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Gilkeson v. KnightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Simpson v. McCartyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- White v. StanleyOhio Supreme Court · 1876
- William Deering & Co. v. WarrenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Weil v. QuamNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911