East v. Whitmer
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from tbe Clark Circuit Court.—Hon. Edwin B. McKee, Judge. Defendant’s absence at the time plaintiff brought the suit was clearly such, as under the statute, gave plaintiff the right to institute his suit against defendant by attachment, in order to collect his debt. Temple v. Cochran, 13 Mo. 119; Emgsland v. Worsham, 15 Mo. Ml; Chariton County v. Moberly, 59 Mo. 238; Paddock-Hawley Co. y. Graham, 48 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe Clark Circuit Court.—Hon. Edwin B. McKee, Judge. Defendant’s absence at the time plaintiff brought the suit was clearly such, as under the statute, gave plaintiff the right to institute his suit against defendant by attachment, in order to collect his debt. Temple v. Cochran, 13 Mo. 119; Emgsland v. Worsham, 15 Mo. Ml; Chariton County v. Moberly, 59 Mo. 238; Paddock-Hawley Co. y. Graham, 48 Mo. App. 638; Waples on Attachment, pages 32, 44, 45, 46. (1) In this case the defendant was honestly and in good faith away on a visit, of not unusual length, making no concealment of his…
1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.
Plaintiff brought an attachment suit on a note against defendant before a justice on the sixteenth of January, 1899. The ground of attachment was “that de*225fondant had absented himself from his usual place of abodle in this state so the ordinary process of law could not be served upon him.” On the twenty-second of January, 1899, defendant returned from an absence from the state, which begun on the twentieth of December, 1898, and pleaded in abatement to the attachment. After trial in the justice’s court there was an appeal to the circuit court, where plaintiff had judgment on the merits, but…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chariton County v. MoberlySupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Ellington v. MooreSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Kingsland v. WorshamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852