Foote v. Hall Commission Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Jones county. Hon. John E. Enochs^ Judge. Foote, the appellant, was plaintiff, and the Hall Commission Company, appellee, was defendant in the court below. From a judgment dismissing the suit on defendant’s motion the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. Foote sued out a writ of attachment against the Hall Commission Company in the circuit court of Perry county.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Jones county. Hon. John E. Enochs^ Judge. Foote, the appellant, was plaintiff, and the Hall Commission Company, appellee, was defendant in the court below. From a judgment dismissing the suit on defendant’s motion the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. Foote sued out a writ of attachment against the Hall Commission Company in the circuit court of Perry county. The affidavit was made before T. G. McOallum, the bond was approved by him, and the writ was issued by him. It nowhere appears in the record that T. G. McOallum occupied any official position, he simply…
1Opinion of the CourtWhitfield, C.J.
The attachment law now in force is substantially the same as that under Act 1878, p. 193, ch. 72, and Bates v. Crow, 57 Miss., 678, furnishes the true doctrine for the solution of this case. The court said there: “In any point of view, therefore, it was erroneous to dismiss the entire case. The utmost that the court could have done was to dismiss the attachment proceeding and even this wo-uld have been improper if the plaintiff had asked for the issuance of an alias writ of attachment to be properly issued and returned, as was held in Barnett v. Ring, 55 Miss., 97. This may yet be done on the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barnett v. RingMississippi Supreme Court · 1877
- French v. LaddMississippi Supreme Court · 1880