Harrill v. Humphries
Supreme Court of Georgia
Attachment, in Thomas Superior Court. Decision by Judge Allen, June Term, 1858. This was an attachment sued out by Harrill, against Humphries on a note not due at the time the attachment issued, and which defendant moved to dismiss on the ground, that the affidavit made by plaintiff did not set out or state the fact that the debt was not due. The Court sustained the motion.
Read the full summary
Attachment, in Thomas Superior Court. Decision by Judge Allen, June Term, 1858. This was an attachment sued out by Harrill, against Humphries on a note not due at the time the attachment issued, and which defendant moved to dismiss on the ground, that the affidavit made by plaintiff did not set out or state the fact that the debt was not due. The Court sustained the motion. Counsel for plaintiff then moved to reinstate the case and to amend by inserting in the affidavit the fact that the note on which the attachment issued was not due. The Court refused the motion, on the ground, that it came…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Benning J.
delivering the opinion.
The affidavit followed the form prescribed by the late attachment Act; and the Act does not require more. Acts of 1855, 1856, jt?. 35.
It was said, that, as the debt was not due, the defendant was entitled to a stay of execution until it should become due, and therefore, that the affidavit should have disclosed the fact, that the debt was not due.
*515But the plaintiff’s pleadings would disclose this fact; and if they would not, the defendant might bring it out in his pleadings ; and, so the fact become known, the manner of its becoming known, would be…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Graves v. StrozierSupreme Court of Georgia · 1867
- Stevenson v. AllenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1956