Seidentopf v. Annabil
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court for Merrick county. The casé was tried below before Post, J., and is stated in the opinion. Undoubtedly the first attachment was void, because issued without the previous order of the judge of the court. Accordingly, the plaintiff moved the court for another attachment, presenting at the same time an amended petition and another affidavit. Upon these papers he was entitled to the order.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court for Merrick county. The casé was tried below before Post, J., and is stated in the opinion. Undoubtedly the first attachment was void, because issued without the previous order of the judge of the court. Accordingly, the plaintiff moved the court for another attachment, presenting at the same time an amended petition and another affidavit. Upon these papers he was entitled to the order. The court had before it an affidavit alleging positively that the defendant was about to dispose of his property to defraud his creditors, and also another affidavit alleging…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, J.
On the fifth of December, 1876, the plaintiff commenced an action against defendant upon two promissory notes, not due, and his attorney filed an affidavit for an attachment on the ground of his belief that the defendant concealed himself to avoid service of summons, and was about to convert his property, or a part thereof, into money, for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of his creditors. A writ of attachment was issued, but no application was made to the court or judge thereof to grant an attachment.
On the twenty-seventh of February, the defendant filed a motion to dissolve this…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Dayton Spice-Mills Co. v. SloanNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Pierce v. MyersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- Cox & Cornell v. Peoria Manufacturing Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Caulfield v. BittengerNebraska Supreme Court · 1893
- Ceres Fertilizer, Inc. v. BeekmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1980