Hoffman v. Imes
Montana Supreme Court
Appeal from Ninth Judicial District, Gallatin County. Defendant’s motion to dissolve the attachment was denied by Armstrong, J. The defendant should have had an opportunity to either give a bond or deposit the money to prevent a levy of the writ of attachment. The writ should have been served upon the defendant before its levy.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Ninth Judicial District, Gallatin County. Defendant’s motion to dissolve the attachment was denied by Armstrong, J. The defendant should have had an opportunity to either give a bond or deposit the money to prevent a levy of the writ of attachment. The writ should have been served upon the defendant before its levy. (Code Civ.Proc., §§ 181, 184, 186.) The provision of our statute in regard to the attachment of property for the security of a debt sued upon is mandatory, and in derogation of the common law, and must be strictly followed. The mode of attachment as provided by the…
1Opinion of the CourtDe Witt, J.
This is an appeal by defendant below from an order of the district court refusing to dissolve an attachment. The motion in the district court was made úpon several grounds, upon only one of which appellant now relies. That we will examine. Appellant’s contention was and is that the attachment should have been dissolved for the reason that the writ was not served upon him, and opportunity given to him to give a bond, or make a deposit of money, prior to the levy upon his property.
Appellant relies upon that portion of section 181, Code of Civil Procedure, as follows: “The plaintiff at the time…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Reyer v. BlaisdellColorado Court of Appeals · 1914
- Mulford v. Central Life Assurance SocietyColorado Court of Appeals · 1913
- Mulford v. Central Life Assurance SocietyColorado Court of Appeals · 1913
- Reyer v. BlaisdellColorado Court of Appeals · 1914