Legal Opinion

Bizzell v. . Mitchell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 18, 1928PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClaeKSON, J.

The sole question presented on this appeal is H. L. Bizzell, the surety on the undertaking, released? No motion to vacate the attachment having been made before a replevy bond was given, hut the jury and the judge each having found as a fact at the trial that no grounds of attachment did exist, was the court in error in vacating the attachment and discharging the surety on the attachment bond? We think not. We decide it here on the theory it. was.tried in the court below.

We must note in the beginning that this is an attachment proceeding— a provisional or ancillary remedy. We are governed by…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Kenney v. Balsam Hotel Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  2. Morganton Manufacturing & Trading Co. v. Foy-Seawell Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  3. Richardson v. . WoodruffSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  4. Thompson v. . DillinghamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  5. Pearre Bros. v. FolbSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Vestal v. Moseley Vending MacHine Exchange, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  2. Robert Yale, Ancillary Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Dudley Schofield, Deceased v. National Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1979
  3. Ivester v. MillerDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2008
  4. Rushing v. . AshcraftSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  5. Lumber Co. v. . JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API