Standard Stamping Co. v. Hetzel
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Keysor, J. Tbe court erred in considering and determining the question of partnership between the defendants. (Drake, Attachment, sec. 418; Alexander v. Brown, 2 Dis. [O.], 396; Hermann v. Amedee, 30 La. Ann., 393; Kuehn v. Paroni, 19 Pac.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Keysor, J. Tbe court erred in considering and determining the question of partnership between the defendants. (Drake, Attachment, sec. 418; Alexander v. Brown, 2 Dis. [O.], 396; Hermann v. Amedee, 30 La. Ann., 393; Kuehn v. Paroni, 19 Pac. Rep. [Nev.], 273; Olmstead v. Rivers, 9 Neb., 234.) Tfhe affidavit is a sufficient and complete denial of the grounds of attachment and raised án issue which went directly to the right of the plaintiff to maintain its attach^ ment. (Leach v. Coolc, 10 Yt., 239; Taylor v. McDonald, 4 O.,…
1Opinion of the Court
Ryan, C.
Plaintiff brought suit in the district court of Douglas county against the defendants named, as individuals, for the recovery of judgment in the sum of $348.13, alleged to have been due, and the sum of $1,067.71 about to become due when suit was brought. An attachment was, at the commencement of the suit, procured to be issued against the property of the defendants, but was levied on a stock of groceries of which the defendant Frank J. Hetzel claimed to be the owner. From an order dissolving said attachment plaintiff, has prosecuted .error proceedings to this court. In the petition…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hill v. SidieWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Kountze v. ScottNebraska Supreme Court · 1896