Bamberger, Bloom & Co. v. Halberg
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 75 — EQUITY APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Appellants, as creditors of Leon, were entitled to be made parlies and controvert appellee’s attachment against Leon. 2. Appellee’s attachment should have been discharged. (Civil Code, 29; I Duvall, 31; Myers’ Code, sec. 41, 257; Peters v. Conway, 7 Bush, 568; Bell v. Hall, 2 Duv., 293; 2 Met., 52; 1 Ibid, 450; 1 Green.
Read the full summary
Case 75 — EQUITY APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Appellants, as creditors of Leon, were entitled to be made parlies and controvert appellee’s attachment against Leon. 2. Appellee’s attachment should have been discharged. (Civil Code, 29; I Duvall, 31; Myers’ Code, sec. 41, 257; Peters v. Conway, 7 Bush, 568; Bell v. Hall, 2 Duv., 293; 2 Met., 52; 1 Ibid, 450; 1 Green. Ev., sec. 180; 3 Ibid, 15; Gen. Stat., chap. 44, art. 2, sec. 2; 3 Bush, 326; Civil Code, 681; 4 J. J. M., 465 ; 2 Duv., 423 ) 1. Section 29, Bullitt’s Code, does not authorize a party made so by his motion to controvert an…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE COFER
delivered the opinion of the court.
January 3, 1879, the appellee brought suit at law against Julius Leon upon two notes, aggregating about three thousand dollars, and sued out an attachment against the property of Leon upon the ground that he was about fraudulently to dispose of his property, and had left the county of his residence to avoid the service of process.
The order of attachment came to the hands of the sheriff at 9JÍ A. M. of the day the suit was brought, and within an hour or two after that time Leon was served with a copy of the attachment, and immediately thereafter…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Nelson v. Chesapeake & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of Virginia · 1892
- Daniels v. SolomonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1897
- Deposit Bank of Owensboro v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1900
- Harris v. ColiverWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1928
- Farwell v. JenkinsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1886