Maloney v. Grimes
Supreme Court of Colorado
Appeal from, District Court, Gilpin County. An agreed case was submitted to the district court as follows: “ Previous to April term, A. D. 1867, of said court two writs of attachment were issued in favor of Woodbury & Co. and John Tierney, respectively, against the Mammoth Gold Mining Go. of Colorado, both returnable and returned to said term, and both levied upon certain real estate of said corporation.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, District Court, Gilpin County. An agreed case was submitted to the district court as follows: “ Previous to April term, A. D. 1867, of said court two writs of attachment were issued in favor of Woodbury & Co. and John Tierney, respectively, against the Mammoth Gold Mining Go. of Colorado, both returnable and returned to said term, and both levied upon certain real estate of said corporation. At July term, 1867, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs in each of these causes. “ September 80, 1867, the premises attached were sold upon special execution issued on these two…
1Opinion of the Court
Hallett, 0. J.
Appellant’s claim to share in the fund in the hands of appellee is based upon the twenty-sixth section of the attachment act. Laws of 1861, p. 210. That section provides for pro rata distribution of the proceeds of attached property among creditors who have sued out writs returnable and returned to the same term of court, and levied the same upon such property. It will be observed that this section extends to cases in which the writs are returnable and returned to the same term of court, thus leaving the cases in which the writs are not so returnable to the operation of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McLagan v. BrownIllinois Supreme Court · 1850
- Warren v. Iscarian CommunityIllinois Supreme Court · 1854