Millius v. Shafer

New York Supreme Court

Millius v. Shafer

3 Denio 60

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1846

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 3 Denio 60 (Millius v. Shafer) 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

Millius v. Shafer, 3 Denio 60 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Beardsley, J.

1 think there was no error in acting upon these sworn statements although not signed by the deponents. The statute requires the proof- to be made by affidavit; (Laws 1831, p. 404, §35;) and these were affidavits although not signed. (Jackson v. Virgil, 3 John. 540.) The facts and circumstances stated in these papers fully warrant the conclusion that the defendant below had assigned, disposed of, or secreted his property, with intent to defraud his creditors, or that he was about to do so, and were therefore sufficient to justify the issuing of an attachment. (P.404, supra, § 34.) The bond, as I think, was sufficient. It was the bond of the agent W. S. individually, and another person, given oil behalf of the plaintiff, and as such satisfies the statute, although the plaintiff may not have been bound by it. The judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

By the Court, Beardsley, J.

1 think there was no error in acting upon these sworn statements although not signed by the deponents. The statute requires the proof- to be made by affidavit; (Laws 1831, p. 404, §35;) and these were affidavits although not signed. (Jackson v. Virgil, 3 John. 540.) The facts and circumstances stated in these papers fully warrant the conclusion that the defendant below had assigned, disposed of, or secreted his property, with intent to defraud his creditors, or that he was about to do so, and were therefore sufficient to justify the issuing of an attachment. (P.404, supra, § 34.) The bond, as I think, was sufficient. It was the bond of the agent W. S. individually, and another person, given oil behalf of the plaintiff, and as such satisfies the statute, although the plaintiff may not have been bound by it. The judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Denio 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/millius-v-shafer-nysupct-1846.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack