Smyth v. Ripley
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Scire facias upon foreign attachment. Plea in abatement that there was no revenue stamp affixed to the writ. The superior court (Carpenter, 7.,) rendered judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff brought the record before this court by motion in error.
1Opinion of the CourtDutton, J.
The law of Congress requires a stamp_ on a “ writ or other original process by which any suit is commenced in any court of record.” In the present case a scire facias was brought on a foreign attachment, in which a debt *157due to tlie original debtor from the present defendant was attached. The superior court struck the case from the docket because the writ was not stamped. The case comes before us on a motion in error from this decision. The only question is whether such a writ requires a stamp.
A writ'of scire facias has many of the qualities of an original writ. It is directed to an officer,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Day v. WellesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1863
- Sherwood v. StevensonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
3Cited by4 opinions
- Savings Bank of Danbury v. DownsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1901
- Vidal Realtors of Westport, Inc. v. Harry Bennett & Associates., Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1983
- Smith v. JewellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
- Loewe v. Union Savings Bank of DanburyDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1915