Calhoun, Bull & Co. v. Ware
Mississippi Supreme Court
IN error from the Circuit Court of Rankin county. Hon. John Watts, judge. On the 19th of May, 1856, Ware sued out an attachment against the estate of Calhoun, Bull & Co., who were non-residents; and, on tbe next clay, the same was levied on certain real estate belonging to them. This attachment was returnable on the fourth Monday of that month, being the twenty-sixth day.
Read the full summary
IN error from the Circuit Court of Rankin county. Hon. John Watts, judge. On the 19th of May, 1856, Ware sued out an attachment against the estate of Calhoun, Bull & Co., who were non-residents; and, on tbe next clay, the same was levied on certain real estate belonging to them. This attachment was returnable on the fourth Monday of that month, being the twenty-sixth day. On the first day of the return term, an order was made, requiring publication of notice of the pendency of the suit to be made in the “ Brandon Republican” for one month. The notice was inserted four times in that paper,…
1Opinion of the CourtHaNDY, J.
The plaintiffs in error rely upon two grounds of error:—
1st. That the publication of notice was not sufiicient to warrant the judgment, it not being in accordance with the requirement of the statute in relation to the subject.
2d. That the judgment was rendered before the expiration of six months from the date of the return of the attachment, and without the stay of proceedings required by the statute.
Upon the first point, it is contended, that the time prescribed bys the statute for the publication of notices against non-resident defendants, in cases of attachment, is one month: Hutch. Code,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Loughridge v. BowlandMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- Cordrey v. SteamshipOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Erwin v. HeathMississippi Supreme Court · 1874
- Yazoo M.V.R. Co. v. WilliamsMississippi Supreme Court · 1925