Le Baron v. James
Supreme Court of Alabama
A motion is submitted by the plaintiff for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, requiring the Circuit Court of Clarke County, to reinstate an ancillary attachment in the above entitled case, which was quashed at the last term. The action is detinue to recover certain slaves and was commenced by capias.
Read the full summary
A motion is submitted by the plaintiff for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, requiring the Circuit Court of Clarke County, to reinstate an ancillary attachment in the above entitled case, which was quashed at the last term. The action is detinue to recover certain slaves and was commenced by capias. Afterwards the ancillary process was sued out on the affidavit of the plaintiff, setting out one of the rea* sons required by the Sth section of the act of 1837.
1Opinion of the Court
GOLDTHWAITE, ,T.
It is evident from an examination of the statutes authorizing the process of attachment, that it was intended to be given only in cases of money demands, and even with respect to these it deserves consideration whether-the process is not confined to those which are of a liquidated nature, or capable of precise ascertainment. It is true, when the ancillary attachment is given by the 8th section of the act of 1837, very general terms are used; but these are controlled by subsequent expressions, showing very clearly that the ancillary process is warranted only in those actions…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Massey v. WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845