Coats v. Arthur
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Minnehaha county. Hon. Frank R. Aikens, Judge. Action to recover damages for breach of contract. The defendant was a non-resident, and on that ground plaintiff sued out an attachment. Defendant moved to dissolve the attachment on the ground that the cause of action as disclosed by the affidavit for an attachment was not one upon contract for the recovery of money only. The motion was denied and defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from circuit court, Minnehaha county. Hon. Frank R. Aikens, Judge. Action to recover damages for breach of contract. The defendant was a non-resident, and on that ground plaintiff sued out an attachment. Defendant moved to dissolve the attachment on the ground that the cause of action as disclosed by the affidavit for an attachment was not one upon contract for the recovery of money only. The motion was denied and defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. Cited the following authorities: Comp. Laws, Sec. 4995; Tuthill v. Smith, 14 Howard Practice 402; Henson v. Decker, 29…
1ConcurrenceFuller, J.
I cannot concur in the- opinion of my associates in this case, although many of the cases cited are in accord with my views. One of the two grounds to which our statute extends the remedy by attachment is to ‘ ‘actions arising on contract for the recovery of money only;” and the affidavit upon which the warrant issues must state, among other things, the amount of the claim, and the grounds upon which it is based. A consideration of the statute, and the cases cited in the majority opinion, convince me that our legislature intended to confine the remedy by attachment, so far as the first ground…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Price v. . CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
- Tuttle v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- Wilson v. Louis Cook Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
- Davidson v. OwensSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860
- Barnes v. BuckNew York Supreme Court · 1869