Tefft v. Epstein

7 N.Y.S. 897, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1368
City of New York Municipal Court·Decided August 6, 1889·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Nehrbas, J.

The affidavit upon which the order for the examination of a third person was granted states that Rachel Epstein, as deponent is informed and believes, has personal property of Simon Epstein, the said judgment debtor, exceeding $10 in value. A motion is made to vacate the order, for the reason that the sources of the deponent’s information are not stated. The cases of People v. Jones, 1 Abb. N. C. 172, and Day v. Lee, 52 How. Pr. 95, hold this to be jurisdictional and necessary. But Miller v. Adams, 52 N. Y. 409, decides that an affidavit on information and belief merely, similar to this one, is sufficient. The latter authority being controlling, the motion to vacate will be denied, without costs. Let the party appear on the 7th inst. for examination.

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

Tefft v. Epstein, 7 N.Y.S. 897, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1368 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

7 N.Y.S. 897 (Tefft v. Epstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clarke v. Nebraska National Bank
77 N.W. 805 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1899)
Grinnell v. Sherman
11 N.Y.S. 682 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1890)