Klepper v. Powell
Tennessee Supreme Court
PROM HAWKINS. Appeal from tbe decree of the Chancery Court, September Term, 1868. S. J. W. Luckey, Ch. 1. The plea was properly overruled. It avers, as a conclusion of law, that the defendant was not a non-resident within the meaning of the attachment laws, and neither gives the date of his leaving nor of his return to the State, nor other facts necessary to sustain the conclusion: citing 1 Chitt. PI, 216, 217; Story’s Eq.
Read the full summary
PROM HAWKINS. Appeal from tbe decree of the Chancery Court, September Term, 1868. S. J. W. Luckey, Ch. 1. The plea was properly overruled. It avers, as a conclusion of law, that the defendant was not a non-resident within the meaning of the attachment laws, and neither gives the date of his leaving nor of his return to the State, nor other facts necessary to sustain the conclusion: citing 1 Chitt. PI, 216, 217; Story’s Eq. PL, ss. 665, 666. 2. The plea is not verified by the oath of the defendant, his agent or attorney: Code, s. 2901; History of Lawsuit, s. 186; Bank of Tennessee v. Jones, 1…
1Opinion of the CourtFreeman, J.
The main question presented in this case is one arising on a plea in abatement filed by the defendant. The bill is an original attachment bill, and as cause for the attachmant alleges that “complainant is informed, and so charges, that the defendant is not an inhabitant of Tennessee, but has so absconded and concealed himself that the ordinary process of law can not be served on him.”
The plea of defendant is, “that he departed from the State of Tennessee for a temporary purpose only, *506and with the intention of returning, and that he is not a non-resident of the State of Tennessee, and was not…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Usrey Ex Rel. Usrey v. LewisCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1977
- Southern Foundry Supply, Inc. v. Spang & Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1971
- Moore v. GoreTennessee Supreme Court · 1950