Legal Opinion

Dronillard v. Whistler

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1868PublishedCited by 5 opinions

APPEAL from the Miami Common Pleas.

1Opinion of the CourtGregory, C. J.

Proceedings in attachment by Whistler against Dronillard, a non-resident of the State. Notice by *553publication; judgment by default; the defendant appeals.

The first alleged error complained of is, that there was no sufficient affidavit on which to found the notice of the pendency of the action. There was an affidavit filed with the complaint, showing the nature of the demand; that the claim was just; the sum the plaintiff’ believed he ought to recover, and.that the defendant was a non-resident of the State. This is all the code requires to authorize notice by publication. 2 G. & II., § 38, p.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Frantz v. WendelIndiana Supreme Court · 1867

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Field v. MaloneIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Cooper v. MetzgerIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Lexington & Big Sandy Railroad v. Ford Plate Glass Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Mehrhoff v. DiffenbacherIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892
  5. Redman v. BurgessIndiana Court of Appeals · 1898

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API