Deupree v. Eisenach
Supreme Court of Georgia
Attachment, in Oglethorpe Superior Court. Decision by-Judge Baxter, April Term, 1851. The attachment in this case was sued out by Edward ‘ C. Shackelford, as the attorney of William H. Deupree. The affidavit stated, that deponent “was informed and believed that defendant resided out of the State, so that the ordinary process of law eould not be served upon him.”
Read the full summary
Attachment, in Oglethorpe Superior Court. Decision by-Judge Baxter, April Term, 1851. The attachment in this case was sued out by Edward ‘ C. Shackelford, as the attorney of William H. Deupree. The affidavit stated, that deponent “was informed and believed that defendant resided out of the State, so that the ordinary process of law eould not be served upon him.” On motion, the Court dismissed the attachment, on the ground that the affidavit was insufficient, because the deponent did not .swear, positively, as to the non-residence of defendant. This decision is assigned as error. Judge Lumpkin…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Warner J.
delivering the opinion.
[1.] By the 2d section of the Act of 1799, an attachment is authorized to issue upon complaint made on oath by the credit- or, that his debtor resides out of this State. Here the party suing out the attachment states, in his affidavit, that he is “ informed and believes” that his debtor resides out of the State. The Act of 29th December, 1836, relates to the indebtedness of the de*599fendant, and not to his residence. In Levy vs. Milman et al. (7 Ga. R. 170,) we held, that inasmuch as the process of attachment was a summary remedy given by Statute to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Neal v. GordonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1878
- Krutina v. CulpepperSupreme Court of Georgia · 1886
- Forbes Piano Co. v. OwensSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Krutina v. CulpepperSupreme Court of Georgia · 1886
- Krutina v. CulpepperSupreme Court of Georgia · 1886