Cassius M. Carrier & Son v. Poulas
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of, first district, Panola county. Hon. James B. Boothe, Judge. Oassius M. Carrier & Son, a corporation, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Poulas and others, the appellees, were defendants there. The suit was begun by attachment, upon a claim for damages arising out of an alleged breach of contract on the part of the appellees, and was based on the fact that defendants were nonresidents.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of, first district, Panola county. Hon. James B. Boothe, Judge. Oassius M. Carrier & Son, a corporation, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Poulas and others, the appellees, were defendants there. The suit was begun by attachment, upon a claim for damages arising out of an alleged breach of contract on the part of the appellees, and was based on the fact that defendants were nonresidents. The attachment writ was levied upon certain property, which the defendants replevied. The defendants did not contest the ground upon which the attachment was sued…
1Opinion of the Court
Calhoon, J.,
delivered the op inion of the court.
On an issue whether the attachment was properly sued out, Code 1892, § 166, provides that, when the verdict is for the defendant, he may recover damages. In the case before us, the affidavit being on the ground of nonresidence, which could not be denied in this instance, the court allowed a writ of inquiry and awarded damages on the attachment bond, the jury having-found on the main issue that there was no debt. Under these circumstances, the right to sue on the bond for damages is clear—Buckley v. Van Diver, 70 Miss., 622 (12 South. Rep.,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Buckley v. VanDiverMississippi Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- McLin v. WordenMississippi Supreme Court · 1911
- Bank of Philadelphia v. PoseyMississippi Supreme Court · 1922