Kingsland v. Worsham
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. This was a suit by attachment, commenced July 2llrd, 1850, for work and labor done and materials furnished. Plaintiffs made affidavits as requited under the third clause of section 1st Article I, rf the act entitled £i an act to provide for the tecovery of debts by attachment.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. This was a suit by attachment, commenced July 2llrd, 1850, for work and labor done and materials furnished. Plaintiffs made affidavits as requited under the third clause of section 1st Article I, rf the act entitled £i an act to provide for the tecovery of debts by attachment.” Rev. Code 1845, in words ami terms to wit: That they had good reason to believe and did believe “ that the defendants above named, have absented themselves and do now absent themselves Horn their usual place of abode within this State, so that the…
1Opinion of the Court
Gamble, J.,.delivered the opinion of the court.
The act providing for the recovery of debts by attachment allows such writ to issue “where the debtor has absconded or absented himself from his usual place of abode in this State, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served upon him.” The attachment, in the present case, was issued upon au affidavit alleging, in the words of the law, that the defendants had absented themselves from their usual place of abode, &o. The truth of the affidavit was denied by plea, and upon the trial of the issue, several instructions asked by the defendants…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re ThompsonNew York Supreme Court · 1828
3Cited by5 opinions
- Chariton County v. MoberlySupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Paddock-Hawley Iron Co. v. GrahamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Rosenthal v. WindensohlerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Fire Department v. ChapmanNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1882
- East v. WhitmerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900