Jones & Co. v. Donnell
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Assumpsit by Donnell against Jones Co. pending the suit, and concurrent with the suing out of the ca. ad res. the plaintiff sued out an ancillary attachment,, which is returned by the sheriff as levied on certain property. The ca. ad res. is returned, executed.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Assumpsit by Donnell against Jones Co. pending the suit, and concurrent with the suing out of the ca. ad res. the plaintiff sued out an ancillary attachment,, which is returned by the sheriff as levied on certain property. The ca. ad res. is returned, executed. Both writs were issued on the 1st January, 1845, and are made returnable to a court to be holden on the 1st Monday of March, 1845. The defendants appeared, at a court holden for the spring term, 1845, and pleaded in abatement of the attachment as follows, to wit: 1. That they were not about to…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldth Waite, J.
1. The first plea in abatement was properly overruled, because the defendant cannot traverse or put in. issu^ the grounds on which.the process is sued out. The statute, ii, is true, uses the term original attachment, but we have repeatedly held, these ancillary proceedings are ' governed by the same rules. The distinction pointed at by the statute is, between original and judicial attachments.
2. The demurrer to the rejoinder to the replication to the third plea presents the question whether the alteration of the term of a court by statute, carries with it and saves all process then issued,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Massey v. WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Walker v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1844
3Cited by2 opinions
- Smith v. Western Pacific Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Grigg v. GilmerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875