himself, or of others for his use, and is about to depart from this State without leaving property therein sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim). John Doe. The plaintiff, John Doe, says that the statements (or, that he believes the statements) of the foregoing affidavit are true. John Doe.1 Signed and sworn to by said John Doe, this 13th day of January, 1897, before me, Clerk of the Lee Circuit Court. John Hancock. (2) IN NORTH CAROLINA WHERE DEBT WAS FRAUDULENTLY John Doe against Richard Roe. CONTRACTED. Form No. 2265. (1 N. Car. Codé (1883) 353, No. 17.) County of Mecklenburg. John Doe, plaintiff above named, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. That the defendant Richard Roe is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of one hundred dollars on an inland bill of exchange, drawn on the seventh day of September, 1896, by défendant on the First National Bank of Charlotte, North Carolina, payable at sight to the order of plaintiff. 2. That on the seventh day of September, 1896, the defendant applied to the plaintiff to purchase a bill of goods amounting to one hundred dollars, which the plaintiff offered to sell to the defendant for cash; that the defendant, contriving to defraud the plaintiff, represented that he had money on deposit at said National Bank for more than the amount of the proposed purchase, and offered to give plaintiff a sight draft on said bank; that the plaintiff, relying upon the representations of the said defendant, and solely induced thereby, sold and delivered a bill of goods amounting to one hundred dollars to the defendant, who thereupon drew the sight order on said bank above referred to; that on the eighth day of September, 1896, the plaintiff presented said draft at said bank for acceptance, when the same was not accepted for want of any funds in said bank to the credit of the defendant; that notice of non-acceptance was given to the defendant, who has wholly refused to pay the draft or any part thereof; that the representations made as aforesaid by the defendant were, and each and every of them was, as deponent is informed and believes, untrue; and that the defendant, as deponent is informed and believes, did not have, nor expect 1. If the affidavit is signed by the attorney or agent of the plaintiff, the certificate should be in these words: "Jeremiah Mason says that the plaintiff, John Doe, is absent from Lee 2 E. of F. P.—11 161 county (or, is physically unable to attend before an officer), and that affiant is his attorney (or, agent) and believes that the statements of the foregoing affidavit are true. Jeremiah Mason." Volume II. to have any funds on deposit at said bank, at the making of the representations above mentioned, but said defendant was then and is now wholly insolvent. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 29th day of September, 1896. Abraham Kent, Justice of the Peace. III. THE PLAINTIFF'S UNDERTAKING. 1. In General. Form No. 2266. In the Superior Court John Doe. Of the County of Marin, State of California. John Doe, plaintiff, against Richard Roe, defendant. Undertaking on Order of Arrest.1 Whereas, the above named plaintiff has commenced (or, is about to commence) an action in the Superior Court of the County of Marin, State of California, against the above named defendant, and is about to apply for an order for the arrest of said defendant in said action (or, Whereas, the above named plaintiff has made, or is about to make, application for an order to arrest the above named defendant) (or, Whereas, an order to arrest the defendant in the above entitled case is about to be issued): Now, therefore, we, the undersigned (or, we, John Doe as principal, and Samuel Short and William West as sureties),2 residents of the State of California (or, residents of the township of Sausalito in the County of Marin, and State of California), do hereby undertake (or in consideration of the premises and of the issuing of said order of arrest, do hereby undertake) (or, do undertake in the sum of one thousand3 Collars) that if the said defendant recovers judgment the said plaintiff will pay all costs that may be awarded (or, adjudged) to the said defendant, and all damages which he (or, said defendant) may sustain by reason of the arrest (or, by reason of the arrest if the same be wrongful or without sufficient cause), not exceeding the sum of one thousand 2 dollars (or, not exceeding the amount specified in this undertaking). Dated the 25th day of January, A.D. 1897. Samuel Short. (SEAL) 3 (SEAL)3 (Affidavit of sureties.)4 Form No. 2267. Supreme Court, City and County of New York. John Doe, plaintiff, against Richard Roe, defendant. Undertaking on Order to Arrest." Whereas, John Doe, the plaintiff above named, has made application to one of the judges of the above named court to arrest the above named Richard Roe, in an action for (here describe the action). Now, therefore, we, Samuel Short, of No. 127 W. 23d street (merchant) in the city of New York, and William West, of No. 110 E. 79th street (merchant) in said city of New York, and Joseph Vanderbilt, of No. 105 Park Row (merchant) in said city, do hereby, pursuant to the statute in such case made and provided, jointly and severally undertake, that if the defendant in the action. do recover judgment therein, or if it is finally decided that the plaintiff is not entitled to the Order of Arrest, the plaintiff in North Dakota.-Rev. Code (1895), § 5307. Oregon.-1 Hill's Anno. Laws (1892), p. 250, 109, subs. 1. South Carolina.-Code Civ. Proc. (1882), § 203. Wisconsin.-2 Sanb. & B. Anno. Stat. (1889), p. 1567, § 2693. West Virginia.-(In Justice Court) Code (1887), p. 435, § 41. In the following states the plaintiff's undertaking must be in double the amount sworn to in the plaintiff's affidavit. Illinois. Starr & Curt. Anno. In the following states the undertaking must be in a sum not exceeding double the amount named in the plaintiff's affidavit. Indiana.- Horner's Stat. (1896), § 858. Kansas.-Gen. Stat. (1889), § 4232. Kentucky.-Bullitt's Code (1895), § 154. 5388. Nebraska.-Cons. Stat. (1893), § Ohio.-Rev. Stat. (1894), § 5493. Oklahoma.-Stat. (1893), § 4027. Wyoming.-Rev. Stat. (1887), § 2841. 1. In Nevada the undertaking must be expressed to be paid "in gold coin of the United States." Gen. Stat. (1885), § 3098. 2. See supra, note 3, p. 162. 3. The use of the seal depends upon the fact of whether or no private seals have been abolished in particular jurisdictions. 4. The forms connected with the justification of the sureties on the plaintiff's undertaking are precisely like those connected with the justification of bail. For all forms connected with this subject, consult the title BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE. 5. See supra, note 1, p. 162. said action will pay all costs which may be awarded to the defendant, and all damages which he may sustain by reason of the arrest in said action, and not exceeding the sum of five hundred1 dollars. Dated February 1, 1897. Samuel Short.2 (Affidavit of sureties.)3 Form No. 2268. William West. 4 Know all men by these presents, that we, John Doe as principal, and John Den and Richard Fen as sureties, are held and firmly bound unto Richard Roe, in the penal sum of one thousand1 dollars, lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which said sum, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally, by these pres ents. Sealed with our seals, and dated this 24th day of October, 1896. The condition of the above obligation is such, that whereas, the above bounden John Doe has, on the day of the date hereof, prayed a writ of capias ad respondendum out of the Circuit Court of Cook County, against the body of the above named Richard Roe, for the sum of five hundred dollars, and the same being about to be sued out of said court, returnable on the second of November, A.D. 1896, to the term of the said court then to be holden: Now, if the said John Doe shall prosecute said capias with effect and without delay, or, in case of failure therein, shall well and truly pay and satisfy the said Richard Roe, all costs and damages that may be sustained by the wrongful suing out said capias, then the above obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Signed, sealed, and delivered (SEAL) John Doe. (2 Starr & Curt. Anno. Stat. Ill. (1896), p. 2417, § 27; Hurd's Rev. Stat. Ill. We hereby bind ourselves to pay all damages and costs, if any, 1. See supra, note 3, p. 162. 2. See supra, note 3, p. 163. 3. See supra, note 4, p. 163. which may be occasioned by the wrongful issuing of a capias in this case. Dated this 20th day of October, A.D. 1896. John Doe. (SEAL) We agree that the plaintiff, John Doe, shall pay to the defendant, Richard Roe, the damages not exceeding six hundred dollars,1 which he may sustain by reason of his arrest, if the order is wrongfully obtained. Witness our hands this 21st day of January, 1897. Whereas, the plaintiff above named is about to apply (or, has applied) for an order to arrest the defendant Richard Roe: Now, therefore, we, Samuel Short of Wake county, and William West of Wake county, undertake in the sum of two hundred dollars 2 that if the said defendant recover judgment in this action, the plaintiff will pay all costs that may be awarded to the said defendant, and all damages which he may sustain by reason of his arrest in this action. Samuel Short. William West. Signed in my presence, this 24th day of October, 1896. Abraham Kent, Justice of the Peace. 1. This amount shall not exceed 2. The sum must be at least one double the amount of the plaintiff's Bullitt's hundred dollars. 1 N. Car. Code (1883), p. 354. |