Clarke v. Meixsell
Court of Appeals of Maryland
* Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. On the 29th of March, 1864, the appellees sued out an attachment in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, against John P. Derr, making oath under the Act of 1864, ch. 306, that the said Derr was bona ñde indebted to them in the sum of six thousand dollars over and above all discounts, and that they “had good reason to believe that the said Derr, the defendant, was about to assign, dispose of, or conceal his property, or…
Read the full summary
* Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City. On the 29th of March, 1864, the appellees sued out an attachment in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, against John P. Derr, making oath under the Act of 1864, ch. 306, that the said Derr was bona ñde indebted to them in the sum of six thousand dollars over and above all discounts, and that they “had good reason to believe that the said Derr, the defendant, was about to assign, dispose of, or conceal his property, or some portion thereof, with intent to defraud his creditors; and that the said Derr fraudulently contracted the debt and…
1Opinion of the CourtNelson, J.
''.Phis case presents three questions for the consideration of the court: First, is the affidavit and the filing of a bond in attachment under the Act of 1864, ch. 306, conclusive and unexaminable, and is the defendant in such attachment precluded from inquiring into the truth of the affidavit upon which such attachment issues? Under the Act of 1795, ch. 56, there is no doubt that the affidavit of the creditor may be inquired into, and if untruthful, or in any other respect defective, the attachment may be quashed on motion, or gotten rid of on plea. Campbell v. Morris, 3 H. & McH. 553; Barr…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lambden v. BowieCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1852
- Barr v. PerryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1845
- Ranahan v. O'NealeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1834
3Cited by2 opinions
- Daniels v. SolomonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1897
- Buschman v. Forster Clark & Co.Baltimore City Superior Court · 1888