Imperial Cotton Oil Co. v. Allen
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Noxubee county. Hon. Guión Q. IIall, Judge. The Imperial Cotton Oil Company, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Allen, appellee, was defendant there. Plaintiff sued out an attachment against defendant on the ground of the nonresidence of the latter. The affidavit was traversed, defendant denying that he was a nonresident. On this point the evidence was conflicting.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Noxubee county. Hon. Guión Q. IIall, Judge. The Imperial Cotton Oil Company, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Allen, appellee, was defendant there. Plaintiff sued out an attachment against defendant on the ground of the nonresidence of the latter. The affidavit was traversed, defendant denying that he was a nonresident. On this point the evidence was conflicting. On the trial plaintiff asked the following instruction: “(5) The court instructs the jury for plaintiff that if they believe from the evidence that at the time of the suing out the attachment in…
1Opinion of the CourtCalhoon, J.
The modification of the plaintiff’s fifth instruction, in our opinion, was error. The other instructions on both sides are general as to nonresidence, and point to the propostion that the defendant’s absence should be so prolonged that he could not be served with any ordinary process. The plaintiff wanted the benefit of a charge that, if there was absence of defendant with intent to remain out of the state for an indefinite period, there was nonresidence within the meaning of the attachment law, “although the jury may believe from the evidence that he occasionally visited the state of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pindell v. HarrisMississippi Supreme Court · 1880