Jacoby v. Drew
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action was brought in the District Court for Winona county, upon an undertaking for an attachment executed by the defendants pursuant to the provisions of Chap. 60, Pub.
Read the full summary
This action was brought in the District Court for Winona county, upon an undertaking for an attachment executed by the defendants pursuant to the provisions of Chap. 60, Pub. Stat. The material allegations of the complaint are substantially as follows : That one Bandall, having commenced an action against Jacoby, (plaintiff,) desired to obtain an attachment therein, against Jacoby’s property, and at Bandall’s request the defendants executed an undertaking as prescribed by said Chap. 60. * * * The undertaking, together with the affidavit in such cases required by statute, were presented to the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Cowrt
Berry, J.
-The warrant of attachment issued by the clerk, without a preliminary allowance by the judge, was, as heretofore decided by this court, unauthorized and void. Lovejoy v. Morrison, 6 Minn. 183; Zimmerman v. Lamb, 7 Minn. 423; Guerin, v. Hunt, 8 Minn. 487.
The undertaking required by statute in case of attachment, does not possess the necessary elements of an ordinary contract. Owing its binding force and obligation entirely to the statute, it follows that it is only in the cases in which it is authorized by statute that it can possess any validity.
*410It is obvious, therefore,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Zimmerman v. LambSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1862
- Morrison v. LovejoySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1861
3Cited by3 opinions
- City of Faribault v. MisenerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
- Hicks v. MendenhallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Standard Implement Co. v. Lansing Wagon WorksSupreme Court of Kansas · 1897