delivered the opinion o‘f the court.
Harpman v. Andalman, 190 Ill. App. 29 (1914)
Nov. 30, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 20,286
190 Ill. App. 29
Simon Harpman, Appellee, v. Julius Andalman, Appellant.
Gen. No. 20,286.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Morton W. Thompson, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed November 30, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Suit in attachment by Simon Harpman against Julius Andalman alleging that defendant was about to fraudulently conceal, assign or otherwise dispose of his property or effects so as to hinder or delay creditors. Both by general and special verdicts the jury found for plaintiff and judgment was entered on the verdicts. To reverse the judgment, defendant appeals.
Joseph H. Landes, for appellant; Jacob Cohen, of counsel.
Adler & Lederer, for appellee.
*30Abstract of the Decision.
1. AttaoeCment, § 246 * —when finding on attachment issue warranted 6y the evidence. In attachment against defendant on the ground that he was about to fraudulently conceal, assign or otherwise dispose of his property, findings of the jury in favor of plaintiff held sustained by "the evidence, there being evidence tending to show that defendant operated a junk yard, that he owed plaintiff for money loaned, and that after demands were made for payment defendant told plaintiff he was going to dispose of his business so that plaintiff could recover nothing, and it also appearing that soon thereafter the materials of the junk yard were removed, and one witness testified that “the wagons were going back and forth all day long” hauling scrap metal from the yard until there was hardly anything left.
2. Execution, § 107*—when motion for stay properly denied. Where a judgment was recovered against a defendant in attachment, the judgment providing only for a special execution and plaintiff being entitled to an execution against the garnishee, held that a motion by defendant for a perpetual stay of execution was properly denied, though defendant was recently discharged in bankruptcy and an execution might be levied on other property, where the defendant did not properly limit his motion to such property.