Legal Opinion · Dissent

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Parrish

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided June 14, 1928Published

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

  1. Tapley v. GoodsellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
  2. Smith v. FargoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Bunneman & Martononi v. WagnerOregon Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Palmer v. VanceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  5. Guaranty Security Corp. v. OppenheimerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923

4 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