oath, declare that I have a good cause of action against the defendant therein named, and a reasonable expectation of receiving a sum amounting to twenty dollars exclusive of all costs which have accrued in any former action, and that I believe and have reason to believe that the said defendant has property not exempt from being taken on execution, which he does not intend to apply to the payment of the plaintiff's claim, and that I believe and have reason to believe that he intends to leave the State so that execution, if obtained, cannot be served upon him. S. L. Granger. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Hampden, s. s., July 23d, A.D. 1879. Personally appeared the above named S. L. Granger before me, and made oath to the truth of the above affidavit by him subscribed, and I certify that I am satisfied the same is true, and satisfactory cause having been shown I authorize the arrest of said defendant, if his arrest is authorized by law to be made after E. W. Dickerman, sunset. Fee, $1.00. Form No. 2245. Justice of the Peace. (Precedent in McNamara v. Garrity, 78 Me. 418.)1 State of Maine. Kennebec, ss. Hallowell, Sept. 6, 1883. Then personally appeared Herbert Blake, attorney, [for] 2 the within named creditor, and made oath that he has reason to believe, and does believe, that the within named debtors are about to depart and reside beyond the limits of the state, and take with them 3 property or means of their 3 own, exceeding the amount required for their immediate support, and that the demand sued for, or the principal part thereof, amounting to at least ten dollars, is due to the within named creditor. [(Furat)] 4 ments of Pub. Stat. Mass. (1882), c. 162, § 1. See also a precedent in Bramhall v. Seavey, 28 Me. 46. 1. This form fulfils the requirements of Rev. Stat. Me. (1883), c. 113, § 2. For another precedent see Oak v. Dustin, 79 Me. 23. 2. The word enclosed in [ ] does not appear in the form as set out in the reported case, but has been added to render the form more intelligible. 3. The debtor arrested objected to the affidavit on the ground that the Herbert Blake, Attorney for creditor. plural instead of the singular pronoun was used. The court held that the affidavit was sufficient, following Cates v. Noble, 33 Me. 258. But an entire omission of the possessive word, either singular or plural, has been held to render the affidavit fatally defective. Bailey v. Carville, 62 Me. 524. 4. The jurat does not appear in the reported case. For the form of a jurat, see supra, Form No. 2237, and also the title AFFIDAVITS, vol. 1, p. 560 et seq. Form No. 2246.1 In the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, John Doe, plaintiff, against Richard Roe, defendant. State of Oregon, County of Multnomah. } SS. I, John Doe, being first duly sworn, say: 2 1. That the above named defendant is justly and truly indebted to me in the sum of one thousand dollars, for (here state the cause of action). 2. That the cause of action is one of those mentioned in section 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (1 Hill's Annotated Laws of Oregon, $108.) 3. That said defendant, Richard Roe, is about to remove from this state. 4. That I have commenced an action in this court against the said defendant, upon the cause of action above stated. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 24th day of October, A.D. 1896. John Hancock, Clerk. John Doe. (2) Where DEFENDANT IS GARNISHEE IN ATTACHMENT CASE. State of Delaware, Kent County, ss. Be it remembered that on this 24th day of October, A.D. 1896, before me, John Hancock, prothonotary of the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent county, personally comes John Doe, the plaintiff in the above stated suit, who being by me duly sworn according to law, doth depose and say that he is the plaintiff in the above stated suit;* that he is the plaintiff in a writ of attachment issued out of the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent county against one Richard Roe, the same being No. 632 of said court; that the said Richard Den, the defendant in the above stated suit, has been summoned by the said 1. This form is drawn under § 106 of the Code Civ. Proc. (1 Hill's Anno. Laws Oregon, § 108, subs. 1). 2. For the formal parts of an affidavit in any particular jurisdiction, consult the title AFFIDAVITS, vol. 1, P. 548. 3. For a complete treatment of the jurat in an affidavit, consult the title AFFIDAVITS, vol. 1, p. 560 et seq. 4. This form is drawn under Laws of Delaware (1893), c. 104, § 9. John Doe as a garnishee of the said Richard Roe in the writ of attachment aforesaid to be and appear at the next term of the said Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent county to make answer there as to what property and effects he the said Richard Den may have of the said Richard Roe; that the said John Doe verily believes the said Richard Den is about to leave Kent county; and the said John Doe further believes that the said Richard Den has in his possession property belonging to the said Richard Roe. John Doe. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 24th day of October, 1896. John Hancock, Prothonotary. e. For Fraudulent Disposition or Removal of Property.1 (1) ASSIGNMENT. (a) Affidavit by Plaintiff. Form No. 2248.2 (Commencing as in Form No. 2247, and continuing down to *) that the defendant therein, Richard Roe, is justly indebted to the said plaintiff, John Doe, in a sum exceeding fifty dollars, to wit, the sum of one hundred dollars, with interest thereon from the 7th day of September, A.D. 1896, and that he verily believes the said defendant has conveyed away, assigned, settled, or disposed of (here state the property which has been secreted) and other personal property or estate of the value of more than one hundred dollars; that the said defendant did, between the 19th day of October, A.D. 1896, and the 23d day of October, A.D. 1896, convey away or dispose of (here detail the fraudulent secretion as specifically as possible), and that the same were conveyed away or disposed of in order to prevent the collection of the said debt owing from the said defendant to the said plaintiff as aforesaid. (Signature and jurat as in Form No. 2247.) Form No. 2249. (Precedent in Supe v. Francis, 49 Mich. 268.) 3 State of Michigan, County of Bay. Charles Supe, being duly sworn, deposes and says that John C. Francis, of Bay City, Bay 1. For a list of the states in which the fraudulent disposal or removal of property is a ground for arrest, see supra, note 1, p. 120. 2. This affidavit was drawn under the Laws of Delaware, vol. 15, c. 180, Laws of Del. (1893) 777. 3. This form fulfils the requirements of 2 How. Anno. Stat. Mich. (1882), § 8753. The defendants claimed that this affidavit and the affidavit which accompanied it were destitute of facts and circumstances justifying an order of arrest. The court held, however, that they did exhibit a state of facts having a legal tendency to make out a case in all its parts sufficient to warrant the holding of defendant to bail. The affidavit which accompanied the county, Michigan, is justly indebted to him in the sum $1856.56 upon an account for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered by the said Charles Supe to the said John C. Francis, at his request, for which demand the said John C. Francis cannot be arrested or imprisoned, according to the provisions of chapter 141 of the Revised Statutes of this State. And this deponent further says that on the 13th day of December, A.D. 1880, he commenced a suit in assumpsit and by attachment, against the said John C. Francis in the circuit court for the county of Bay. And this deponent further says that he has reason to believe, and does believe, that the said John C. Francis has disposed of and assigned the whole of his property with the intent to defraud his creditors, and that the said John C. Francis has property and rights in action which he conceals, and that the facts and circumstances constituting the grounds of his said belief are the following: The said John C. Francis has been for one year and upwards prior to the commencement of deponent's said suit against him, engaged in the grocery business at Bay City, Michigan, and at the time said suit was commenced had a stock of goods which would inventory at about $2600; that on or about the 11th day of December, A.D. 1880, the said John C. Francis executed a bill of sale of all the goods, chattels and merchandise, comprising his said stock of groceries, to one Casper Van Strattum, who paid nothing in one in the text was in the words following: "State of Michigan, County of Bay. "Casper Van Strattum, being duly sworn, says he is 21 years of age and a resident of Bay City, in said county, and that he is the person to whom the bill of sale of the stock of goods, wares and merchandise was made by John C. Francis on or about the 11th day of December, A.D. 1880. This deponent says that the bill of sale was without consideration, and was made to him by the said Francis to prevent creditors of said Francis from collecting their various claims, or any part thereof, out of the said goods and property; that said Francis was indebted to a number of persons; and that when said Francis induced deponent to let him make a bill of sale to deponent, said Francis claimed that it was to prevent Gustin, Merrill & Co., to whom he was indebted, from collecting their said indebtedness; and deponent further says that he paid nothing and did nothing for said bill of sale and transfer. "Deponent further says that on or about the 24th day of December, A.D. 1880, the said Francis came to the res idence of deponent in said city, and in conversation with deponent informed him that he had now disposed of his interest in his vessel property, and was all right now; that they could not do anything now. He informed deponent that he had been gone from the city for the purpose of fixing his vessel matters. 66 'Deponent further says that on the 10th day of January, A. D. 1881, said Francis called at the residence of this deponent, and asked him if he had told Mr. Supe, or any one, of what he told deponent; and deponent informed him that Mr. Supe had asked deponent about the matters, and that deponent had told him of them; and thereupon said Francis told deponent that he thought deponent could have kept still about the matter. "Deponent does not know of any other property owned or possessed by said Francis; and further deponent says not. "Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 11th day of January, A.D. 1881. 7. A. McKnight, Notary Public in and for Bay Co., Mich. Casper Van Strattum." consideration for the transfer to him of said property, and that the said bill of sale of said stock was made by said Francis without any consideration, and with the avowed purpose of delaying and preventing the creditors of said Francis from enforcing the collection of their debts against him, and that the said Francis afterwards stated to deponent that he made the aforesaid pretended sale of said stock to said Van Strattum for the purpose of preventing one firm of his creditors from enforcing the collection of their claim against him. Deponent further says that said Francis was, at the time of the commencement of this suit against him, the owner of an interest in two certain vessels sailing on the lakes,- one called the George King, a steamboat, and the other the barge C. L. Young,— and that on or about the 20th day of December, A.D, 1880, and after the commencement of said suit by deponent against him, he assigned and transferred all his interest in and to said vessels to one Anthony Francis, an uncle of said John C. Francis, for the sole purpose, as deponent is informed and believes, of preventing deponent and his other creditors from collecting therefrom their indebtedness due to them, and that said Francis, in conversation with deponent, stated to deponent that the said transfer was made by him without consideration. This deponent further says he is unable to learn of or find any other property, real or personal, belonging to said Francis. except as hereinafter mentioned, out of which to collect the amount of said indebtedness so due to deponent. Deponent further says that the defendant Francis is indebted to a number of other persons, which indebtedness was due at the time said transfers were made, and still remains unpaid. That said Francis has books of accounts on which are charges against divers persons contracted by them in his said business, the names of whom and the amounts of which indebtedness are unknown to deponent, and said Francis, although requested by deponent, utterly refuses to show said books to deponent, or to state to deponent the amount of any such indebtedness, or from whom due, and effectually conceals all knowledge thereof from deponent. And further deponent saith not. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11th day of January, A.D. 1881. 7. A. McKnight, William Wyatt, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is 1. This affidavit fulfils the requirements of 2 How. Anno. Stat. Mich. (1882), § 8753. It was held to be sufficient to give the court jurisdiction |