Searcy v. Platte County
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from Platte Circuit Court. The only question in this case is, whether the statute authorising suit to be instituted in ordinary cases against either or all the obligors of a note, also authorizes suit to be commenced by attachment against a non -resident, when there is a co-obligor resident, good for the amount of the note. The appellants think not.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Platte Circuit Court. The only question in this case is, whether the statute authorising suit to be instituted in ordinary cases against either or all the obligors of a note, also authorizes suit to be commenced by attachment against a non -resident, when there is a co-obligor resident, good for the amount of the note. The appellants think not. See the attachment law; also Hemstead vs. Dodge, 1 M. R. 1st ed. 493; 19 Vermont Rep. 239; 4 Ohio Rep. 1st. No good reason is seen, in any point of view whatever, why the writ ought to have been quashed for the reasons set forth in said…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
The county of Platte sued the appellants by attachment for the recovery of a debt in the justices’ Court. The ground of the attachment was the non-residence of the defendants. The cause was taken by appeal to the Circuit Court, when a motion was made to dismiss the suit, because it did not appear that Wm. Spencer, who was the security in the bond on which the suit was brought, was unable to pay it, or was a nonresident, and because the security in the bond was able to pay the debt, and was a resident of the State; the Court refused the motion and judgment having been entered against the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re ChipmanNew York Supreme Court · 1817