Quebec Bank v. Carroll
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from district court, Hamlin county. Hon. James Spencer, Judge. Motion to discharge an attachment. Allowed. Plaintiff appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from district court, Hamlin county. Hon. James Spencer, Judge. Motion to discharge an attachment. Allowed. Plaintiff appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion. While the defendant could move to discharge the attachment on the ground that the allegation in plainti ff’s affidavit for an attachment as to non-residence was untrue, he is not entitled to move for a discharge on the ground that he had made an assignment of all his property for the benefit of his creditors in Ontario, Canada, prior to the attachment. The assignee alone could urge that ground in an action to test…
1Opinion of the CourtKellam, J.
The attachment was issued from said court on the 6th day of March, 1889, upon the affidavit of David B. Crombie, manager and agent of plaintiff and appellant, which after stating the cause of action and the grounds thereof as required by subdivision 1, § 4995, Comp. Laws; further states ‘ ‘that the defendants are each of them not residents of the Territory of Dakota;” and this is the only statutory ground stated or attempted to be stated for the issuance of the attachment. On the 7th day of March the attachment was levied upon property, both real and personal, as the property of the defendant…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chandler v. NashMichigan Supreme Court · 1858
- First National Bank v. RandallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Sims, Harrison & Co. v. Jacobson & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1874
- Mitchell v. SkinnerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Keith v. ArmstrongWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Tolerton & Stetson Co. v. CaspersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895