Hornick Drug Co. v. Lane
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from district court, Spink county. Motion to discharge an attachment. Allowed. Plaintiff appeals. The facts so far as material are stated in the opinion. In order to justify the dissolution of an attachment all the essential grounds of the attachment must be positively denied. The moving papers must possess the essential features of good pleading. Kritzer v. Smith, 21 Mo. 296; Garrett v. Tri.enen, 7 How. 465; Kuthv.
Read the full summary
Appeal from district court, Spink county. Motion to discharge an attachment. Allowed. Plaintiff appeals. The facts so far as material are stated in the opinion. In order to justify the dissolution of an attachment all the essential grounds of the attachment must be positively denied. The moving papers must possess the essential features of good pleading. Kritzer v. Smith, 21 Mo. 296; Garrett v. Tri.enen, 7 How. 465; Kuthv. Stetter, 25 Kan. 100; Wade on Attachment, 279; Dole v. Burleigh, 1 Dak. 218; Bliss Code Plead. 332. A chattel mortgage upon a stock of goods which permits Rhe mortgagor to…
1Opinion of the CourtKellam, J.
This case comes to this court on appeal from an order of the district court discharging an attachment therein. The warrant was issued upon an affidavit charging that the defendant had “assigned, disposed of, and secreted his property, and was about to assign, dispose of, and secrete his property, with intent to defraud his creditors.” The principal ground relied upon to justify the issuing of the warrant was the giving of a certain chattel mortgage on a portion of his stock, by defendant and respondent, to his brother, William A. Lane, which mortgage appellants claim as to them, creditors of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Noyes v. LaneSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
- Watson v. LoewenbergOregon Supreme Court · 1899
- Lindquist v. JohnsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900