Mills v. Findlay
Supreme Court of Georgia
Attachment, from Bibb Superior Court. Tried before Judge Powers, May Term, 1853. This was a motion to set aside a Judgment on Attachment, which Robert Eindlay had sued out against Daniel S. Mills, returnable to Bibb Superior Court, and on which he had obtained a judgment.
Read the full summary
Attachment, from Bibb Superior Court. Tried before Judge Powers, May Term, 1853. This was a motion to set aside a Judgment on Attachment, which Robert Eindlay had sued out against Daniel S. Mills, returnable to Bibb Superior Court, and on which he had obtained a judgment. The motion was made on the following grounds: 1st. That the Attachment and Judgment were founded on a claim of unliquidated damages — on an alleged breach of covenant, and not on any debt due or to become due; and the amount of which damages was not ascertained, by any agreement or understanding of the parties to the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Lumpkin, J.,
delivering the opinion.
[1.] The first is the only ground of error which wo think it *232necessary to notice ; and that is, that under tbe laws of this State, no Attachment lies for the recovery of unliquidated damages, consequent upon the breach of a covenant.
[2.] Ry the custom of London, which is the foundation of all of our Attachment Laws, an Attachment would only lie upon contracts, either express or implied, for the payment of money; and to enforce which, an action of debt or indebitatus, assumpsit could be maintained. And our judgment is, that our Attachment Laws…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Grimmett v. BarnwellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
- Morris W. Haft & Bros. v. WellsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1937
- Sonnesyn v. AkinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
- Owen v. MoseleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
- Mitchell v. Union Bag Paper CorporationCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.