Berkson Bros. v. Coen
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Copiah county. Hon. J. B. Chrisman, Judge. The opinion states the case. "When the attachment'writ was issued and the declaration filed, § 1522, code 1880, was complied with, and there was a pending suit, notwithstanding the defendant was not served with process. An attachment is a proceeding in rein and in personam combined.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Copiah county. Hon. J. B. Chrisman, Judge. The opinion states the case. "When the attachment'writ was issued and the declaration filed, § 1522, code 1880, was complied with, and there was a pending suit, notwithstanding the defendant was not served with process. An attachment is a proceeding in rein and in personam combined. The plaintiffs in this case, as they had the right to do, elected to proceed only in personam, and have the defendant summoned to answer the pending suit. See Bates v. Crow, 57 Miss., 676; Code 1880, §§ 2430-2434. Since the suit was pending, what…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
On the twenty-sixth day of December, 1880, an attachment writ was taken out by appellants against appellee, and the same levied upon the latter’s personal property, but no personal service was made upon Coen. In April, 1881, a declaration in attachment, based on an open account, was filed. The property seized was condemned to sale, and a personal judgment by default was entered against the defendant, the case then going off the docket. From April, 1881, until March, 1893, the appellants rested upon their void personal judgment, taking no steps to correct the palpable and fatal error in the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- J. T. Moore & Co. v. HoskinsMississippi Supreme Court · 1889
- Ralph v. PresterMississippi Supreme Court · 1855