Francis v. Burnett
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 4 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM -WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. To sustain an attachment obtained under subsection 2, section 194, Civil Code, it must be alleged and proved, not only that the defendant has not enough property in this State subject to execution to satisfy the plaintiff’s demand, but that the collection of that demand will be endangered by delay in obtaining a judgment and a return of "no property found.” - The existence of the latter condition is not…
Read the full summary
Case 4 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM -WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. To sustain an attachment obtained under subsection 2, section 194, Civil Code, it must be alleged and proved, not only that the defendant has not enough property in this State subject to execution to satisfy the plaintiff’s demand, but that the collection of that demand will be endangered by delay in obtaining a judgment and a return of "no property found.” - The existence of the latter condition is not nocessai’ily implied from the existence of the former. 2. Where a creditor has other security for his demand than the mere…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
September 3, 1884, Burnett instituted an action against Francis on nine promissory notes, and obtained an attachment against his property for the canses prescribed in subsection 2, section 194, Civil Code, which is as follows:
“In an action for the recovery of money due upon a contract, judgment or award, if the defendant have no property in this State subject to execution, or not *26enough thereof to satisfy the plaintiff’s demand, and the collection of the demand will be endangered by delay in obtaining judgment or a return of no property found.”
Ther…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Burdett v. Phillips & Bro.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1880
- Jenkins v. Jackson, Loving & Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1871
3Cited by15 opinions
- Sibley v. NasonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Porter v. MackWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1901
- Woodford v. McDanielsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1914
- Hansen Mercantile Co. v. Wyman, Partridge & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- First National Bank v. D. Kiefer Milling Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1893
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.