
    Almeda Waterbury, Resp’t, v. James Eliphalet Waterbury. Harriet E. Drew, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February, 1894.)
    
    Attachment—Affidavit.
    An affidavit, if sufficient to call upon the court to exercise its discretion, will suffice to give jurisdiction to issue an attachment.
    
      Appeal by Harriet E. Drew, a subsequent lienor, from an order of the supreme court made at the Orange county special term, and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Orange on the 27th day of ¡November, 1893, denying her motion to vacate a warrant of attachment. '
    The affidavit upon which the warrant, of attachment in the action was granted was as follows:
    “ Almeda Waterbury, being duly sworn, says that she is the. plaintiff in the above-entitled action; that a summons has been issued in said action accompanying this application, which is brought to recover the following sums of money only, to wit, the sum of $2,150, with interest on $1,500 thereof from July 2,1892; interest on $500 thereof from March 1, 1893; and three years’ interest on $150 thereof.
    “ Also to recover the sum of $500 on note given to Theodore Sly and one year’s interest' due thereon ; also to recover $600 on note given to Wallace J. ¡Dhsinberre and interest thereon, both of which said notes are owúed and held by this plaintiff, and that plaintiff claims and is entitled to recover therein from the defend■ant, J. Eliphalet Waterbury, the said sum as damages for breach of contract.
    “ Said notes above mentioned are all over- due and payable at this date, and are over and above all counterclaims known to her, and she is entitled to recover said sums of money and all thereof upon a cause of action above set forth, existing in her favor against the said defendant, arising out of the following facts: The plaintiff above named is now the owner and holder of three certain promissory notes executed by the said defendant and payable to the plaintiff, one for $1,500, one for $500, and one for $150, all of which are over due, and upon which interest is due as above stated. The plaintiff is also the owner and holder of the two following described promissory notes, one given by defendant to Theodore Sly for the sum of $500, with ititerest for one year, thereon; also one other note given by defendant to W. J. Dusinbe„rre for the sum of $600, together with the interest thereon, and which said notes are now owned and held by this plaintiff.
    “ That the defendant, J. Eliphalet Waterbury, is .a resident of the state of ¡New York; that he has departed therefrom with intent, as this -deponent believes, to defraud his creditors, and the grounds of her belief are as follows:
    “ That the said defendant on the morning of the 21st day of September, 1893, departed from his home in the county of Orange, where he then and heretofore had always resided, without stating to any person his place of destination, or where he could he addressed or found, or When he- would return, and he still remains absent from his said home, and has not been seen or heard from since his said departure; that said defendant is heavily in debt, and is involved in an amount equal, if not exceeding all property whatever which - he owns, or of which he was possessed at the time of his departure; that he stated to deponent just prior to his departure that he had not money sufficient to pay his interest, and that he' was going to the fair then held in the village of Warwick, Orange county, W. T.; that defendant did not go to such fair, but, on the contrary, went in an opposite direction, and has not since been heard from. And that since the departure of the said defendant from his said residence and on the 29th day of September, 1893, a barn and stable attached upon his premises were burned by fire, and the security of this plaintiff was thereby further reduced and imperilled.
    “ And deponent further states that no previous application for a warrant of attachment has been made in this or any action.
    “ The plaintiff, therefore, applies for a warrant of attachment against the property of the said defendant, J. Eliphalet Waterbury, as provided by the Code of Civil Procedure.
    “ Almeda Waterbury.”
    
      M. K Kane, for app’lt; J. V. D. Benedict, for resp’t.
   Pratt, J.

We think the affidavit of plaintiff was sufficient to call upon the court to exercise its discretion, and that will suffice to give jurisdiction.

In opposition to the motion to vacate the attachment the plaintiff argues that the moving papers do not show a valid attachment in favor of the subsequent creditor. As we are of opinion that plaintiff’s papers are sufficient, we are not compelled to analyze those of the subsequent creditors. The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cullen and Dykman, J.J., concur.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  