Legal Opinion

Nelson v. Fuld & Co.

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided January 3, 1891PublishedCited by 2 opinions

EROM DAVIDSON. Appeal from Chancery Court of Davidson County. Andeew Allison, Ch.

1Opinion of the CourtSnodgrass, J.

The complainant sued out in the Chancery Court an attachment which was levied *467upon the goods of defendant. It issued upon allegation “that complainant is informed and believes that said Euld & Co. have fraudulently disposed of or are about fraudulently to dispose of their property,” and without averment that defendant company had done the one or was about to do the other.

On motion, the attachment was quashed by the Chancellor because the allegation referred to was not sufficient to authorize it. Einal decree being rendered, complainant appealed, and assigned error upon the action indicated.

Suc…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Phipps v. BurnettTennessee Supreme Court · 1896
  2. A.G. Campbell & Co. v. Chemical Separations Corp. (In re Chemical Separations Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API