Coffman v. Brandhoeffer
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Clarkson, J. cited, contending that the motion to quash constituted a general appearance: Porter v. C. & N. W. P. Go., 1 Ñeb., 15; Crowell v. Galloway, 3 Id., 220; Aultman v. Steinan, 8 Id., Ill; Bell v. Olmsted, 18 Wis., 71-5. cited: Carlisle v. Corran, 2 S. W. Rep. [Tenn.], 26; Bellv. Olmsted, 18 Wis., 75-80; Freeman v. Burks, 16 Neb., 328; Cleghorn v. Waterman, Id., 226.
1Opinion of the CourtNorval, J.
This suit was commenced on the 3d day of April, 1890, in the county court of Douglas county by the plaintiff in error upon a promissory note signed by the defendant. At the same time an affidavit for attachment and garnishment was filed, and a summons, writ of attachment, and garnishee summons were issued, returnable May 5, 1890. The grounds for attachment were:
1. That the defendant was about to remove his property, or a part thereof, out of the jurisdiction of the court with intent to defraud his creditors.
2. That the defendant is about to convert his property, or a part thereof, into money…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hagan v. BurchSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- Cleghorn v. WatermanNebraska Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by14 opinions
- Martineau v. City of St. PaulCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1949
- Hanna v. Emerson, Talcott & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Darnell v. MackNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Mosher v. HuwaldtNebraska Supreme Court · 1910
- Davis v. BallardNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.