Connon v. Dunlap
Supreme Court of Georgia
Attachment. Partnership. Before Judge Speer. Bibb Superior Court. October Term, 1819. To the report contained in the decision, it is only necessary to add the following : Dunlap sued out an attachment against Connon, as anon-resident member of the firm of McGrath & Connon. His declaration in attachment was also against Connon alone, as a member of said firm.
Read the full summary
Attachment. Partnership. Before Judge Speer. Bibb Superior Court. October Term, 1819. To the report contained in the decision, it is only necessary to add the following : Dunlap sued out an attachment against Connon, as anon-resident member of the firm of McGrath & Connon. His declaration in attachment was also against Connon alone, as a member of said firm. The account attached to the declaration was against the firm; Defendant moved to dismiss the declaration, to rule out evidence, and for a non-suit, each motion being based on the non-joinder of Mc-Grath in the suit. Each was overruled.…
1Opinion of the Court
Warner, Chief Justice.
This was an attachment sued out by the plaintiff against the defendant as one of the partners of the firm of McGrath & Oonnon (alleging that Connon resided out of the state) under the provisions of the 3276th section of the Code, and was levied upon the individual property of Connon. The only question made by the record in this case, is whether, as the attachment was founded upon a copartnership debt, the plaintiff should not be required in his declaration to declare against both partners jointly; inasmuch as the attachment is founded upon a joint contract. The plaintiff…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Evans v. VirginWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
- Boozer v. FullerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1892
- Clark v. MaddoxCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930