A levy was duly made thereunder upon appellant's property in this State and thereafter service of the summons and complaint was made without the State, pursuant to sections 235 and 905 of the Civil Practice Act. Order denying appellant's motion to vacate the attachment and the service of the summons and complaint reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. We are of opinion (1) that the evidentiary proofs of its cause of action submitted by the respondent upon its application for the warrant were legally insufficient ( Ladenburg v. Commercial Bank, 87 Hun, 269; Willson v. Lloyd, 210 App. Div. 96, 98; Abdun-Nur v. Arbeed, 198 id. 795, 796; Zenith Bathing Pavilion v. Fair Oaks S.S. Corp., 240 N.Y. 307; Georgis v. Giocalas, 225 App. Div. 577; Friedman v. Prescetti, 199 id. 385; Wesley v. Drake, 240 id. 59, 60); and (2) that the like proofs of the alleged fact that the appellant is a foreign corporation are also legally insufficient ( Friedman v. Prescetti, supra; Murphy v. Jack, 142 N.Y. 215; Dain's Sons Co. v. McNally Co., 137 App. Div. 857; Hart v. Page Manufacturing Co., 187 id. 296). Young, Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.
In Southwell v. Kingsland ( 85 App. Div. 384, 386) the court said: "The mere expression of plaintiff's opinion as to value, without corroboration, or any details as to the nature or extent of the labor and services performed, is insufficient." In Willson v. Lloyd ( 210 App. Div. 96) this court said: "* * * the affidavit in support of the application for the attachment does not establish the claim by any further proof of sufficient quality to satisfy the rule that the cause of action must be shown to be one that may be substantiated. * * * Nor are the damages in the third cause of action made out with that accuracy of proof which ought to accompany an application to seize the defendant's property in a specified amount." In Barbrick v. Carrero ( 184 App. Div. 160) this court stated: "Within the authorities the plaintiff has not shown with sufficient detail either the character of the service rendered or its value, in order to justify the granting of the warrant of attachment."
There is another appeal in this action from an order made upon the original complaint, the decision of which will be handed down herewith. (See Willson v. Lloyd, 210 App. Div. 96.) This application is made upon the amended complaint, which differs in no material respects from the original complaint. In the order handed down upon the other appeal this court has set aside the attachment as not authorized by the papers presented therefor.