Legal Opinion

Kahle v. Muller

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1890PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from special term, Hew York county. Action by Joseph Kahle against Herman L. Muller and Carle Knille. Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion to vacate an attachment against their property in favor of plaintiff.

1Opinion of the CourtBrady, J.

The motion herein to be considered was made upon the insufficiency of the affidavit on which the attachment was granted, and the grounds were fully stated in the notice of motion served. The action was brought by a plaintiff who is the second assignee of the claim presented, and there is neither an allegation that he knew personally of the indebtedness, nor statements as to the sources of his information in regard to it, if he have any, other than the assignments which he sets up. The second paragraph of his affidavit begins, “Upon information and belief,” and the other paragraphs begin,…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hoormann v. Climax Cycle Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
  2. Ladenburg v. Commercial BankNew York Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Lewinsohn v. Kent & Stanley Co.New York Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Hoormann v. Climax Cycle Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
  5. Clarke v. Nebraska National BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1899

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API