Hanson v. Graham

Hayne, C. This is an appeal from an order refusing to dissolve an attachment. The attachment was issued upon an affidavit that the defendant was a non-resident, and the motion to dissolve was upon the ground that the affidavit was not true, and that the defendant was a resident.

The affidavits read upon the hearing consist in great part of mere conclusions and statements on information and belief. The following facts, however, appear to be undisputed. The defendant, Graham, was a contractor for the building of railroads and other similar works. In 1884 he left his former residence, and established himself in Victoria, British Columbia. In 1886 he left that place, and finally settled in San Diego, with the intention of engaging in business there. While in San Diego he lived in hotels and lodging-houses. After about ten months, business became dull, and he stored his contractor’s tools and implements, and in June, 1388, went to Chile for the purpose of engaging in busi[632]ness there. In October, 1888, the attachment was levied, at which time he had not returned from Chile.

It further appears that the purpose of going to Chile was to get contracts in his line of business of which he had heard. So much is undisputed. It does not distinctly appear how long such contracts would take to fill if he succeeded in getting them. In this regard the plaintiff states in his affidavit upon information and belief that the defendant had gone to Chile with the intention “of engaging in railway contracting, involving millions of dollars and years of time for completion, the said work necessitating an extended residence of many years’ duration and that should it be necessary for him to return to the United States, such return would be only for the temporary purpose of arranging his business affairs in said county of San Diego preparatory to the removal of said outfit to, the republic of Chile. The defendant produced many affidavits, to the effect that Graham had stated before leaving that he intended to return shortly; and the affiants offer their conclusions to the effect that he always intended to return, and that he was still a resident of California. As above stated, the affidavits on each side are vague and unsatisfactory. We think that it sufficiently appears, however, that defendant went to Chile for the purpose of prosecuting his business of contractor there, and that if successful in obtaining contracts he would remain at least as long as would be necessary for their completion; and that he had been gone about four months without returning.