Day v. Lee

52 How. Pr. 95
New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided November 15, 1876·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Van Brunt, J.

The affidavit upon which the order was made, the allegation of indebtedness being* simply upon information and belief without stating the sources of information, is not a sufficient allegation to support any facts necessary to be established to entitle the court to issue the order for examination, and the examination in this case shows the necessity of the rule requiring facts to be stated, and not conclusions. Many cases have come before me where third parties have been damaged before the court without any reason whatever, and such orders are a hardship and should be discountenanced.

Proceedings dismissed as without jurisdiction.

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

Day v. Lee, 52 How. Pr. 95 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1876).

52 How. Pr. 95 (Day v. Lee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tefft v. Epstein
7 N.Y.S. 897 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1889)