
    CLINTON H. BLAKE and another, Respondents, v. SIEGEL BERNHARD, Appellant.
    
      Attachment—when fraudulent design sufficiently shown.
    
    This was an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside an attachment granted on the affidavit of the plaintiff, averring that he had been informed and believed that the defendant contracted the debt fraudulently; that the defendant was then engaged in putting all his property out of his hands; and that defendant proposed to refuse payment of his obligations, and defraud his creditors, in pursuance of a plan determined upon before the purchase of the goods sold him by the plaintiff. It also alleged that the plaintiff’s father informed deponent that he had called on defendant and charged him with the facts stated, and defendant did not deny their truth, but promised to call and see deponent in relation to an immediate payment of his claim. The affidavit was corroborated by that of the plaintiff’s father. Held, that sufficient grounds for the issuing of an attachment had been shown, and that the omission by the defendant to deny the charges of plaintiff’s father, and his promise to call and pay the claim, were an acknowledgment of their truth, and made out a prima facie case of fraudulent design.
    
      Adolph L. Sanger, for the appellant.
    
      George, S. Sedgwick, for the respondents.
   Opinion by Brady, J.

Daniels, J., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs, besides disbui'sements.  