
    Denzer vs. Mundy.
    1. An attachment cannot be sustained against the property of a debtor upon an allegation of the removal of the property of such debtor from his store by a‘ third person claiming to be his assignee, merely because there is no assignment filed in the clerk’s office, although a general charge of a fraudulent assignment by the debtor, to cheat and defraud Ms creditors, is sworn to.
    2. The mere allegation of a belief of the plaintiff of the fraudulent intent ofrthe defendant in removing such goods, which removal he is superintending, or of a fraudulent assignment in general terms, does not furnish grounds for judicial action.
    3. A neglect to record an assignment within the statutory period fixed therefor, does not make it fraudulent.
    (Before Robeetsob, Ch. X at special term.)
    Heard August 21, 1866;
    decided August —, 1866.
     