Maryland Casualty Co. v. Parrish
Supreme Court of Virginia
1Dissent
Prentis, P.,
dissenting:
I differ with the majority of the court in their conclusions in this case, and think the question is of such importance that I ought to give some expression to my views.
1. I agree with the learned trial judge, and think the judgment should be affirmed. The title of section 6394 shows that it is intended to offer distinct alternative methods open to a defendant whose property has been attached. The title is: “How any property seized under attachment restored; how the whole released; what bond to be given.” If the defendant simply desires the property siezed under the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Tapley v. GoodsellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Smith v. FargoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Bunneman & Martononi v. WagnerOregon Supreme Court · 1888
- Palmer v. VanceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Guaranty Security Corp. v. OppenheimerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.