
    The Essex County National Bank of Newark, Resp’t, v. Thomas V. Johnson, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Deparment,
    
    
      Filed October 16, 1891.)
    
    1. Attachment—Aejjidavit.
    In an affidavit for an attachment, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to state that the note in question was not paid or whether it was taken for value before or after maturity.
    2. Same—President op bank.
    An affidavit of the president of the plaintiff bank, stating that there are no counterclaims against it known to the plaintiff or to deponent, is a compliance with the Code. The president will be presumed to have knowledge in reference to claims which might exist against the corporation which he represents.
    Appeal from order denying motion to vacate attachment
    
      A. B. Carrington, for app’lt; G. A. Strong, for resp’t
   Per Curiam.

We see no reason for disturbing the attachment granted in this action. Most of the allegations as to which the knowledge of the president of the bank in making the affidavit is challenged were entirely immaterial and need not have been made in order to make a perfect cause of action.

As to the question of payment, or whether the note was taken for value before or after maturity, those are affirmative defenses which it is not necessary for the plaintiff to rebut in the first instance. The president of the bank at the time of making the affidavit, states that there are no counter-claims to the cause of action set up in the affidavit, known either to the plaintiff or to deponent; and this is a compliance with the Code. There is no requirement which compels the party making the affidavit to have knowledge of all the transactions of the plaintiff for the six or twenty years prior to the time of the application for the attachment during which the counter-claims might have arisen. The position of the affiant was such that he would be presumed to have knowledge in reference to the claims which might exist against the corporation which he represented at the time of the commencement of the action.

We think, therefore, that the order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Van Brunt, P. J., Daniels and Ingraham, JJ., concur.  