Cupit v. Park City Bank

King, J.:

After this cáse had been decided by this court, during *428the June term, 1894, a petition for rehearing was filed, in which it was claimed that the cases cited in the opinion, ,and upon which it is rested, were based on a statute wholly different from that prevailing in this territory. The petition was granted, and the case again argued at the following term. It was held by tliis court when the case was first presented (Cupit v. Bank, 37 Pac. 564) that the notice given by defendant of its motion to discharge plaintiff-s attachment was defective, in failing to “ specify the ground upon…