From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

American Trading Co. v. Bedouin Steamship Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Nov 1, 1905
48 Misc. 624 (N.Y. App. Term 1905)

Opinion

November, 1905.

Convers Kerlin (John M. Woolsey and Orville C. Sanborn, of counsel), for appellant.

Stetson, Jennings Russell (Walter Bruce Howe, of counsel), for respondent.


In order to obtain a warrant of attachment, it was necessary for plaintiff to show, not merely to allege, that defendant is a foreign corporation. Such fact may be said to be shown, if it is positively alleged by some person who may be deemed to have personal knowledge upon the subject, so that his statement can be accepted as evidence of the fact. Ladenburg v. Commercial Bank, 5 A.D. 219. It cannot be said to be so shown when the person making the allegation, although he may do so positively, as of his own knowledge, is evidently and obviously not in a position to possess personal knowledge upon the subject. James v. Signell, 60 A.D. 75. The affiant swears that he is in the employ of plaintiff and is manager for its hemp department. This fact may lend some color to his averment that he has personal knowledge of the purchase of hemp in the Philippine Islands and its shipment from Manila, although that does not appear wholly probable; but it certainly lends no color to the statement that he has personal knowledge of the fact and place of incorporation of the owner of the steamship by which the hemp was conveyed from Manila to New York. It may be that he is quite right in saying that defendant owns the steamship and it may even be that his belief on that subject is based on evidence which, if submitted to the court, would be held to prove the fact, at least prima facie, but he does not submit such evidence and contents himself with saying that he has personal knowledge of a fact which, under the circumstances, is so improbable that we are forced to conclude that he made the statement inadvertently and without precise appreciation of the effect of his statement. Yet there is no other evidence of the vital fact that defendant is a nonresident corporation.

The order appealed from must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate the attachment granted, with ten dollars costs.

GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.


Summaries of

American Trading Co. v. Bedouin Steamship Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Nov 1, 1905
48 Misc. 624 (N.Y. App. Term 1905)
Case details for

American Trading Co. v. Bedouin Steamship Co.

Case Details

Full title:THE AMERICAN TRADING COMPANY, Respondent v . THE BEDOUIN STEAM NAVIGATION…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Nov 1, 1905

Citations

48 Misc. 624 (N.Y. App. Term 1905)
96 N.Y.S. 271

Citing Cases

Heller v. Frota Oceanica E Amazonica, S.A.

The plaintiffs alleges that defendant Frota is "a foreign corporation which, based upon review of the New…

Geduld v. Baltimore Ohio R.R. Co.

An allegation of non-residence, when made by a principal in the transaction, as here, and not by his…