Finch v. Armstrong
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Brookings county. Hon. J. O. Andrews, Judge. Action upon an account not yet due. From an order dissolving attachments, plaintiffs appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion. The supreme court of this state has held that what might be grounds for attachment on a debt due, would not be on a debt not due, and, presumably, the converse is true.
Read the full summary
Appeal from circuit court, Brookings county. Hon. J. O. Andrews, Judge. Action upon an account not yet due. From an order dissolving attachments, plaintiffs appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion. The supreme court of this state has held that what might be grounds for attachment on a debt due, would not be on a debt not due, and, presumably, the converse is true. Deering & Co. v. Warren, 1 S. D. 46. See, also, Foley-Wadsworth Co. v. Porteous, 8 S. D. 74, 65 N. W. 429; §§ 4993 and 5014, Comp. Laws. If, at the time the mortgage was given, there was an understanding between the parties that…
1ConcurrenceHaney, J.
It is my view that the statute distinguishes between claims due when the attachment issues and those not then due. Comp. Laws, Sec. 4993, defined the grounds in cases belonging to the former; Sec. 5014 the grounds in cases belonging to the latter. Chap. 67, Laws 1895, was intended to contain all the grounds of attachment where the debt is due, and by its terms repeals all acts in conflict therewith, but was not intended to change the grounds of attachment where the debt is not due. Since Chap. 67 took effect, I think, in cases where the debt is due, the fact that it was incurred for property…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Park v. ArmstrongSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896