Boland v. Starling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boland v. Starling

211 A.D. 803

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1924·Published

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.)

Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jayeox, Manning and Kelby, JJ., concur.)

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

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.)

Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jayeox, Manning and Kelby, JJ., concur.)

Boland v. Starling, 211 A.D. 803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

211 A.D. 803 (Boland v. Starling) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related