Roberts v. Walker
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Error to the Cray Circuit. Chancery. Case 21. To give the chancellor jurisdiction to attach and apply the fund of an absent debtor, in the hands of a third person, to the payment of the debts ot such absent debtor, the proceedings should be instituted in the county_ where such third person resides at its filing or the process served m the county where the suit is brought.
Read the full summary
Error to the Cray Circuit. Chancery. Case 21. To give the chancellor jurisdiction to attach and apply the fund of an absent debtor, in the hands of a third person, to the payment of the debts ot such absent debtor, the proceedings should be instituted in the county_ where such third person resides at its filing or the process served m the county where the suit is brought. It is the power over^tife subject sought to be reached', that gives the Couit ímlsdfoiTttaehí ments — not the service- or process ontbeprintheal service Uof jbreni,33 ^county from jhat ^in is brought. "Where an attaoh tin…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court
The prayer for an attachment and the jurisdiction of the Court, are founded upon the allegation that James Roberts, the debtor of the complainants, is out of the ■State, and has been absent during one term of the Circuit Court of Clay county, in which county he had usually resided, and that Jos. Roberts has funds of his, more than equal to the debt. The bill does not alledge that Joseph Roberts, the guarnishee, is a resident of Clay county, and there is no sufficient evidence that he was so at the commencement of the suit, or when the first…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Young v. Wood & AbbotCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1850