Legal Opinion

Simpkins v. Malatt

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1857PublishedCited by 11 opinions

APPEAL from the Warren Court of Common Pleas.

1Opinion of the CourtStuart, J.

Affidavit for a writ of ne exeat. Motion to dismiss for want of a sufficient affidavit, sustained; exception and appeal.

B. F. Gregory and J. Harper, for the appellant. J. JR. M. Bryant, for the appellees.

The point of objection is, that the affidavit is not positive. The plaintiff swears that he has reason to believe, and does verily believe, that Hale and Malatt are about to remove, &c. The language of the statute is that the plaintiff or his agent shall make an affidavit that the plaintiff is about to remove, &c.

Is the affidavit sufficient? We think it was. “It was formerly thought,” says…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Commonwealth v. CornishSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1814

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Toops v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
  2. Curry v. BakerIndiana Supreme Court · 1869
  3. Ex Parte BlakeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Thayer v. BurgerIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Koch v. District CourtSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911

6 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