Penrod Drilling Co. v. Bounds
Mississippi Supreme Court
1Dissent
Unable to accept the reasoning set forth in the majority opinion, I must state my views to the contrary.
Significantly the initial pleading filed by Bounds against Penrod is entitled "Bill of Complaint and Attachment in Chancery". The first numbered paragraph avers that Penrod is a Louisiana corporation on whom process cannot be had in Mississippi. Then he names the garnishee-defendants and charges that they are qualified to do business in Mississippi and "have property and effects" of Penrod in their possession. In his prayer, he asked that the garnishee-defendants' property be "attached" and…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Shaffer v. HeitnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Duvall v. DuvallMississippi Supreme Court · 1955
- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- EUCLID-MISS., a DIV. OF TRIPPEER ORGANIZATIONS v. Western Cas. & Sur. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1964
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.