Majority
p. 150Ralph S. Hamilton et al., Resp’ts, v. Frederick D. Steck et al., App’lts. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department Filed May 16, 1890.)
Headnote
Attachment — Affidavit.An affidavit for attachment -which states that plaintiffs sold and delivered goods to defendants; that affiant manages their business in ííe w Tork and made the sale; that he has been informed by them that they have had no dealings with defendants except through affiant as agent, and that plaintiffs are entitled to recover a sum named over and above all counterclaims known to plaintiffs or to the affiant, and that one of the defendants is a non-resident, is sufficient.
Appeal from order denying motion to vacate attachment,
FranJclin Bien, for app’lts; Charles H. Machin, for resp’t.
Van Brunt, P. J.
The affidavit upon which the attachment was granted seems to be sufficient.
The allegations therein set forth are not all upon information
p. 151
and belief. The affidavit states the cause of action that the plaintiffs sold and delivered goods to the defendants; that the .affiant sold them; that he is in charge of the plaintiffs’ office in Hew York, and manages their business there; that their principal place of business is Providence, Rhode Island; that he has been informed by them that they have had no dealings with the defendants except through the affiant as agent, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the sum sued for over and above all counterclaims known to the plaintiffs or to the affiant, and that the defendant Payne is a non-resident.
We think this is sufficient The goods were sold by affiant; he managed the plaintiffs’ business in Hew York, and consequently is presumed to have the best knowledge as to the condition of the transactions between the plaintiffs and defendants. There is an express allegation of sale and delivery of the goods, and we see no reason for disturbing the attachment.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Daniels and Brady, JJ., concur.