Bowen v. Gilkison
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Linn District Court. The plaintiffs, in their petition, ask for an attachment, and for cause, state under oath, “ that said defendants are in some manner about to dispose of their property, without leaving sufficient remaining for the payment of their debts.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Linn District Court. The plaintiffs, in their petition, ask for an attachment, and for cause, state under oath, “ that said defendants are in some manner about to dispose of their property, without leaving sufficient remaining for the payment of their debts.” Amotion was made to dissolve the attachment, for the reason that the cause stated was not siifficieut to entitle plaintiffs to the writ — the law requiring that they should state the manner in which defendants were disposing of their property, and that it was with a fraudulent intent. A demurrer was interposed for the…
1Opinion of the Court
Wright,. C. J.
According to the decision made in Lockard & Co. v. Eaton, 3 G. Greene, 543, the affidavit is clearly bad. . It is suggested, however, that that case is overruled by Danforth, Davis & Co. v. Carter & May, 1 Iowa, 546. This is not our understanding of the remarks there made. The affidavit in the latter ease was, “ that the defendants were about to dispose of their property, with intent to defraud their creditors,” complying strictly with the ruling made in the first case. It was therefore unnecessary then to re-examine the question, for the affidavit contained the allegation of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Danforth, Davis & Co. v. CarterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
- Sackett, Belcher & Co. v. PartridgeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1857
3Cited by2 opinions
- Chittenden & Co. v. HobbsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- Pittman v. SearceySupreme Court of Iowa · 1859