Comfort v. Gillespie

New York Supreme Court

Comfort v. Gillespie

13 Wend. 404

DecidedJanuary 15, 1835

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Wend. 404 (Comfort v. Gillespie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Comfort v. Gillespie, 13 Wend. 404 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1835).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Nelson, J.

The attachment in this case appears to have been issued under the 34th section of the “ act to abolish imprisonment for debt and to punish f; audulent debtors.” Statutes, session of 1831, p. 404. And it is manifest that the justice exceeded his jurisdiction, as that act fixes fifty dollars as the extent of the demands for which justices may issue attachments. Besides, the bond was defective in not truly setting forth the suit in which the attachment issued, and the affidavit was wholly insufficient in omitting to state that the defendant was about to dispose of his property with the intent to defraud his creditors, and also in omitting to state the facts and circumstances upon which the applicant relied in support of his application. These omissions, it seems, were intended to be supplied by a verbal statement of the applicant, which the statute does not authorize.

Judgment reversed.

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

By the Court,

Nelson, J.

The attachment in this case appears to have been issued under the 34th section of the “ act to abolish imprisonment for debt and to punish f; audulent debtors.” Statutes, session of 1831, p. 404. And it is manifest that the justice exceeded his jurisdiction, as that act fixes fifty dollars as the extent of the demands for which justices may issue attachments. Besides, the bond was defective in not truly setting forth the suit in which the attachment issued, and the affidavit was wholly insufficient in omitting to state that the defendant was about to dispose of his property with the intent to defraud his creditors, and also in omitting to state the facts and circumstances upon which the applicant relied in support of his application. These omissions, it seems, were intended to be supplied by a verbal statement of the applicant, which the statute does not authorize.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Wend. 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comfort-v-gillespie-nysupct-1835.