Barney v. Moore-Haggerty Lumber Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
Brom the circuit court of Simpson county. Hon. [Robert L. Bullard, Judge. The Lumber company, appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; Barney and another, partners doing business under, the firm name of Barney & Hines, appellants, were defendants there. Barney, one of the defendants, lived in Amite county, -Mississippi, his partner, Hines, lived in Memphis, Tennessee.
Read the full summary
Brom the circuit court of Simpson county. Hon. [Robert L. Bullard, Judge. The Lumber company, appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; Barney and another, partners doing business under, the firm name of Barney & Hines, appellants, were defendants there. Barney, one of the defendants, lived in Amite county, -Mississippi, his partner, Hines, lived in Memphis, Tennessee. The suit was an attachment against both partners by plaintiff, a partnership creditor, on the ground of defendant’s non-residence; the affidavit also charged that the debt sued upon was fraudulently contracted, but of this…
1Opinion of the Court
Mayes, J.,
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
A peremptory instruction should not have been given on the attachment issue on either of the grounds alleged in the affidavit. The first ground alleged that the defendants were nonresidents of the state, but the facts demonstrate that one of the partners resided- in Amite county, in the state of Mississippi, and therefore this ground of attachment necessarily fails, since section 131 of the Code of 1906, contemplates that, where one or more of the partners reside in this state, an attachment cannot be sustained on the ground of non-residence. As to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dinwiddie v. GlassMississippi Supreme Court · 1916
- Blair v. Frank B. Russell & Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1919