Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek

OPINION

By the Court,

Thompson, J.:

The issue is whether this action for damages for wrongful attachment brought upon the attachment bond is premature *653since the underlying case in which the attachment was obtained and later discharged as improper (see Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek, 80 Nev. 408, 395 P.2d 521 (1964)) is still pending.1 The district court ruled that this action was prematurely commenced and dismissed it. We affirm that determination.

1. The attachment bond in the underlying action instituted by Vitek against Clarence E. Morris, Inc., was written pursuant to NRS 31.030(1) and is…