Biddle v. Mcloughlin

City of New York Municipal Court

Biddle v. Mcloughlin

17 Misc. 748, 39 N.Y.S. 837

DecidedMay 15, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Misc. 748 (Biddle v. Mcloughlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Biddle v. Mcloughlin, 17 Misc. 748, 39 N.Y.S. 837 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

McCarthy, J.

This is an appeal from an order vacating an attachment on the original papers.

The affidavit is defective in the fact that it does not allege or show that William H. Clark was the agent or attorney of the defendant or authorized in any way to speak for him.

We cannot assume or presume knowledge of absent facts..

They are essential in order to sustain the attachment.

The cases cited by the appellant are good law, but do not bear out the appellant’s contention, when applied to the facts of this case.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Conlan and Sohuohman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI