City of New York Municipal Court, 1889

Tefft v. Epstein

Tefft v. Epstein
City of New York Municipal Court · Decided August 6, 1889 · Nehrbas
7 N.Y.S. 897; 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1368 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

David Leventritt, for Rachel Epstein. Palmer <& Boothby, for judgment creditors.

Tefft v. Epstein

Opinion of the Court

Nehrbas, J.

The affidavit upon which the order for the examination of a third person was granted states that Rachel Epstein, as deponent is informed and believes, has personal property of Simon Epstein, the said judgment debtor, exceeding $10 in value. A motion is made to vacate the order, for the reason that the sources of the deponent’s information are not stated. The cases of People v. Jones, 1 Abb. N. C. 172, and Day v. Lee, 52 How. Pr. 95, hold this to be jurisdictional and necessary. But Miller v. Adams, 52 N. Y. 409, decides that an affidavit on information and belief merely, similar to this one, is sufficient. The latter authority being controlling, the motion to vacate will be denied, without costs. Let the party appear on the 7th inst. for examination.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.