Curtis v. Hoadley
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Lyon District Court. Action brought by Curtis against Hoadley upon a promissory note. December 29, 1882, the judge of the district court discharged an attachment therein which plaintiff had obtained against the property of defendant under §§ 230 and 231 of the code. Plaintiff brings this order here for review. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hokton, C. J.:
The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant upon a promissory note before it was due, and obtained an attachment against the property under the provisions of §§ 230 and 231 of the code. Afterward the defendant filed his motion and affidavit to discharge the attachment, for the sole reason that the grounds laid for the attachment in the plaintiff’s affidavit were untrue. Upon the hearing of the motion before the judge of the court at chambers, various affidavits were submitted, and the case taken under advisement by the judge.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Simpson v. WestenbergerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
3Cited by1 opinion
- Colvin v. WilsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1917