Manley v. Headley
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Atchison District Court. On the 30th of August 1861 an action was commenced in the Atchison district court entitled “The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the State of Kansas, plaintiff, against James A. Headley and Joseph P. Carr, partners, etc., defendants.” Summons was issued and returned “Not found,” as to both defendants.
Read the full summary
Error from Atchison District Court. On the 30th of August 1861 an action was commenced in the Atchison district court entitled “The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the State of Kansas, plaintiff, against James A. Headley and Joseph P. Carr, partners, etc., defendants.” Summons was issued and returned “Not found,” as to both defendants. On the 7th of December 1861 Robert-L. Pease made and filed an affidavit for an order of attachment in said action, setting forth the same cause of action as that stated in the' petition, which affidavit, after title and venue, commenced as…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Brewer, J.:
This case is similar in many respects to the cases of Foreman v. Carter, and Challis v. Headley and Carr, 9 Kas., 674, 684. Like them it comes here from a decision -of the district court of Atchison county, setting aside a judgment as void. Many of the same questions arise in this that were in those cases. But there are some defects in the proceedings here which render the judgment void, and compel us to affirm the decision of the district court. One of these defects only will require notice. The judgment set aside was rendered in an…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Foreman v. CarterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872
- Willis v. Lyman, Sears & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1858
- Dean v. OppenheimerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1866
3Cited by4 opinions
- Miller v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- Mentzer v. EllisonColorado Court of Appeals · 1896
- Carter v. BabcockMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
- Mentzer v. EllisonColorado Court of Appeals · 1896