Pierse v. Smith
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This wras an action of assumpsit commenced in the District Court of Kamsey County, for the recovery of the sum of two hundred and sixty-two dollars and a half.
Read the full summary
This wras an action of assumpsit commenced in the District Court of Kamsey County, for the recovery of the sum of two hundred and sixty-two dollars and a half. A writ of Attachment was issued in the suit, based on the following affidavit: Territory of Miovnesota, ) Pamsey County. j ss' Allan Pierse being duly sworn, says: that Charles E. Smith (now in said County) is indebted to him on account, for work and labor performed for him, the said Smith, at his instance and request, as per bill of particulars annexed, in the sum of two hundred and sixty-two dollars and fifty cents, (subject to a…
1Opinion of the CourtFuller, C. J.
The laws of Wisconsin, under which this suit was commenced, after specifying the cases in which a suit may be commenced by Attachment (see Laws of Minnesota, 1849, p. 155, Sec. 3) provided, that “ the facts necessary to entitle a party to a writ-of Attachment should be proven to the satisfaction of a District Judge, or Supreme Court Commissioner, by the affidavitjof the plaintiff or some credible witness, stating therein the circumstances upon which the belief of such facts was founded.”
Proof, in the sense in which it is used in this act, means legal evidence, or such species of evidence as…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Smith v. LuceNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Loder v. PhelpsNew York Supreme Court · 1834
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hinkley v. St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1864
- Clarke v. Nebraska National BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- Hinds v. FagebankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1864
- International Ass'n of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, Local Union No. 34 v. General Pipe Covering, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1985