Beer v. Hooper
Mississippi Supreme Court
IN error from the Circuit Court of Lawrence county. Hon. John E. M'Nair. iudsre. On tbe 24th day of May, A. D. 1855, the defendant in error, sued out an attachment returnable to the Circuit Court of Lawrence county, in this State, against A. Beer & Co., a mercantile firm residing in New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana. The attachment was served on the same day, by summoning Moses Marx, a citizen of this State, as garnishee.
Read the full summary
IN error from the Circuit Court of Lawrence county. Hon. John E. M'Nair. iudsre. On tbe 24th day of May, A. D. 1855, the defendant in error, sued out an attachment returnable to the Circuit Court of Lawrence county, in this State, against A. Beer & Co., a mercantile firm residing in New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana. The attachment was served on the same day, by summoning Moses Marx, a citizen of this State, as garnishee. The affidavit upon which the attachment was issued was made by W. P. Harris, agent and attorney of the plaintiff, but it did not state that the plaintiffs were…
1Opinion of the CourtHaNDY, J.
The first ground of error insisted upon is, that the affidavit and bond are insufficient to support the attachment.
The objection to the affidavit is, that it is made by the plaintiffs’ attorney, and does not show that the1 plaintiffs are non-residents of the State or of the county where it 'was made. This was required by the provisions of the attachment law. Hutch. Code, 802, § 7. *255But the general statute authorizes attorneys to make affidavits that may be necessary in all cases either in the institution or pro-, secution of any suit. Hutch. 845. And the first statute above referred to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Bedell & Warden v. ScrutonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1882
- Hawley v. HuntSupreme Court of Iowa · 1869
- Einer v. BesteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
- Main & Winchester v. MessnerOregon Supreme Court · 1888
- Von Glahn v. VarrenneU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1871