Legal Opinion

Parker, Holmes & Co. v. Cleveland

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided January 15, 1896PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval county. The facts in the case are stated'in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

Liddon, J.:

The appellants (plaintiffs below) began an action of assumpsit upon unpaid bills of merchandise against the appellee (defendant below) for $1,100, and in said action sued out a writ of attachment against the defendant. The affidavit for attachment was made April 16th, 1891, by one William L. Haynes, agent of the plaintiffs, and the grounds alleged are that said affiant had reason to believe, and did believe, (1) that the defendant would fraudulently part with his property before judgment could be recovered against him, and (2) that said defendant was fraudulently disposing of his…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Frank v. MyersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
  2. Smith v. MitchellMichigan Supreme Court · 1863
  3. Mooney v. CooledgeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1875
  4. Perry v. VezinaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
  5. Muhr v. PinoverCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1887

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. McKeown v. CollinsSupreme Court of Florida · 1896
  2. Haggerty v. St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
  3. Hummell v. HarringtonSupreme Court of Florida · 1926
  4. Norris v. BillingsleySupreme Court of Florida · 1904
  5. Armour v. DoigSupreme Court of Florida · 1903

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API