
    Lewis Abrams, Resp’t, v. Charles Lavine, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
    
    
      Filed December 3, 1895.)
    
    1. Attachment—Affidavit.
    An affidavit for an attachment, which merely alleges what third persons told affiant, is insufficient.
    2. Same.
    The affiant should allege an attempt to procure the deposition of the informant, and the refusal of the latter to make an affidavit.
    3. Same.
    The fact that the latter is a friend of the defendant, and has done business in the town where the defendant resides, is not a sufficient reason for not producing the affidavit.
    Appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an attachment.
    
      Charles E. Patterson, for app’lt; Lyman Jenhins, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

The grounds upon which plaintiff applied for an attachment were that defendant had failed to meet him at Glens Falls as he had promised to, and that plaintiff sawand had a conversation with one Aronsen, in which the latter said that said Charles Lavine, the defendant therein ; that something about six months ago one Link failed at North Creék, N. Y., at the place where said Lavine is now, and was at that time, doing business; that said Link was assisted during said failure by said Lavine, and that he was now about to assist said Lavine to sell, assign, dispose of, and secrete his property with intent to defraud his creditors; and that said Lavine said that he, should make an assignment of all his property within about thirty days.” The statements of Aronsen, on which 0 plaintiff applied for an attachment, were mere hearsay. The plaintiff failed to give any sufficient reason why the affidavit of Aronsen was not produced. The fact that the latter is a friend of defendant, and has done business in the town where defendant resides, was not sufficient reason. The statement that Aronsen will not voluntarily make an affidavit is evidently a mere conclusion of the plaintiff’s. He should have alleged an attempt to procure the deposition of Aronsen, and the refusal of the latter to make an affidavit. Farley v. Shoemaker, 17 St. Rep. 205; Bank v. Alberger, 78 N. Y. 252. As said by Danforth, J., in the case last cited (page 258), “It would be intolerable if the property of a citizen was liable to seizure upon such vague and inconclusive averments as are contained in the affidavits before us.” Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs.  