Bunn v. Pritchard
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Polk District Court. Suit by attachment. In the affidavit for the writ, the word “ not” was omitted, in stating as the cause for which it was prayed that the attachment might issue, that the defendant had property, goods, &c., not exempt from execution, which he refused to give either in payment or as security of the plaintiff 5s debt.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Polk District Court. Suit by attachment. In the affidavit for the writ, the word “ not” was omitted, in stating as the cause for which it was prayed that the attachment might issue, that the defendant had property, goods, &c., not exempt from execution, which he refused to give either in payment or as security of the plaintiff 5s debt. The court dissolved the attachment on account of the defect in the affidavit, although it was shown to have been the mere oversight of the attorney in preparing the papers; and notwithstanding the plaintiff prayed leave to file an amended…
1Opinion of the CourtStockton, J.
— The refusal of the district court to permit the plaintiff to amend his affidavit, and the order quashing the attachment, were erroneous, and must be reversed. Code, sec. 2511; Brock v. Manatt, 1 Iowa, 128; Graves v. Cole, 1 G. Greene, 405.
Judgment reversed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brock v. ManattSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
3Cited by4 opinions
- Langworthy v. WatersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1861
- Reister v. LandSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1904
- Baker Wire Co. v. KingmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
- In re McKibbenDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1874