Boland v. Starling
This text of 211 A.D. 803 (Boland v. Starling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Order denying defendant’s motion to vacate attachment reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The plaintiff’s affidavit as to the defendant’s residence shows no personal knowledge as to his residence, and is based entirely upon information and belief. No reason is given why the affidavit of plaintiff’s informant is not produced. Plaintiff’s statements, therefore, are merely hearsay, and are insufficient as a basis for granting the attachment. (Hoormann v. Climax Cycle Co., 9 App. Div. 579; Cousins v. Schlichter, 135 id. 779; Delaney v. Bouse, 91 id. 437; Gumbes v. Hicks, 116 id. 120; affd., 190 N. Y. 532.)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
211 A.D. 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boland-v-starling-nyappdiv-1924.