Boston v. Wright
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Brown County. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. 1st. Attachment is a provisional remedy merely. Wright could not come in to defend in the case stated in the petition. Note 3, Seney's Code, p. 66, 2d. The answer of Wright below, is no answer in the cause. The proceeding was not the legal mode of dissolving the attachment. 3d. There was no foundation for the verdict; the motion for a new trial should have been therefore granted.
Read the full summary
Error from Brown County. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. 1st. Attachment is a provisional remedy merely. Wright could not come in to defend in the case stated in the petition. Note 3, Seney's Code, p. 66, 2d. The answer of Wright below, is no answer in the cause. The proceeding was not the legal mode of dissolving the attachment. 3d. There was no foundation for the verdict; the motion for a new trial should have been therefore granted. Seney’s Ohio Code, 120, n. 1. 1st. The action is a proceeding in rem; the owner of the real estate attached was a proper party.…
1Opinion of the Court
*229By the Court,
Safford, J.
This was a suit in attachment brought by Andrew J. Boston against James A. McGuire, in the District Court of Brown county. Upon the attachment issued in the cause, certain real estate was seized as the property of defendant McGuire. Notices of garnishment were served upon parties alleged to be indebted to McGuire, and service by publication was duly made upon him. No answer or other pleading was filed by McGuire. At a term of the District Court subsequent to that at which the suit was brought, T. S. Wright moved the court to dissolve the attachment, which was…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Kerr v. ReeceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- Butcher v. TaylorSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Rapp v. KyleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Gates v. SandersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1874
- Bank of Santa Fé v. Haskell County BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894