itors, and have assigned and disposed of, and secreted, and are about to assign, dispose of, and secrete, property with the like intent; and deponent further says that the facts in regard to this allegation are that the said defendants are the owners of divers horses numbering in all about four-teen, which horses are the same horses which have been kept by the plaintiff, as hereinabove mentioned and set forth, and for the keep and care' of which the aforesaid sum of $1,686 is due as aforesaid; and that the said defendants surreptitiously removed, from time to time, all the said-horses from the stables of the plaintiff, while the plaintiff had a lien upon the said horses for their keep, and have recently advertised the same' for sale in the public papers, in none of which is the name of any person-given as owner of the horses, and in one or more of which papers the said horses are mentioned as being horses “formerly the property of Messrs. Jacob Strauss & Co.,” the said defendants conducting business under that name, and the said defendants now claiming, or causing it to be understood, that the said horses are now owned by a brother-in-law of one of the defendants; and that from these facts, and investigations which deponent has made, he has ascertained, and now states, that the said defendants are about to self and dispose of the said horses in such manner as to make the public believe' that the same are not their property, but belong to some other person or persons, and so that they may receive the proceeds thereof in a secret manner,- and avoid the payment of the debts due from them to their creditors, inelud-ing the aforesaid sum due to the plaintiff as aforesaid.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN and PARKER,JJ.S. Feuchtwanger, for appellant.
F. B. Candler, for respondent.
This motion is based upon various grounds,only two of which it is necessary for us to consider. The first is that there are two grounds of attachment stated, each of which is incon-sistent with the other, and the same facts could not establish both propositions. It is impossible for us to tell which ground the judge" who granted the attachment considered to be established by the affidavits. In the next place, the allegations in the affidavit in-regard to fraudulent action upon the part of the defendant are entirely conclusions of the affiant, no facts whatever being set up on which such conclusions rest. These facts must be set up, in order' to enable the court to determine whether the conclusions derived by the affiant are well founded. The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate attachment granted, with $10 costs.