Charles City Plow & Manf'g Co. v. Jones & Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Floyd Circuit Court. . Plaintiff, brought an action against defendants on a money demand, and'sued out a writ of attachment, on which certain personal property belonging to defendants was seized. There was no controversy as to plaintiff’s demand, but defendants pleaded a counter-claim for damages on the attachment bond for the wrongful suing out of the attackment. On the trial, defendants recovered on the counterclaim, and plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
Reed, J., 1. ATTACHmfbond^°ev£ deneeI. The grounds on which the attachment was sued out were “ that defendants are about to dispose of their
property with intent to defraud their creditors, X. X J ? an(^ tNat defendants have property or rights in action which they conceal.” On the trial a member of defendants’ firm was examined as a witness on behalf of his firm, and was asked whether the firm, before the attachment was issued, was about to dispose of its property with intent to defraud its creditors, or whether there was any talk or intimation or intent on their part of doing so in the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Center v. SpringSupreme Court of Iowa · 1856
- B., C. R. & N. R. Co. v. VerrySupreme Court of Iowa · 1878
3Cited by9 opinions
- Schnathorst v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1949
- Shea v. Cloquet Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- L. Bucki & Son Lumber Co. v. Atlantic Lumber Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1903
- Peters v. Snavely-AshtonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- Citizens' National Bank v. LoomisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.