Green v. Anderson & Hilzheim
Mississippi Supreme Court
Error to tbe Circuit Court of Hinds county. Hon. John Watts, judge. No memorandum of tbe argument of counsel for plaintiff in error bas come to tbe possession of tbe Eeporter. Tbe case presents tbe single question as to tbe construction and effect of the attachment law, which went into operation after the alleged fraudulent act complained of had taken place.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Circuit Court of Hinds county. Hon. John Watts, judge. No memorandum of tbe argument of counsel for plaintiff in error bas come to tbe possession of tbe Eeporter. Tbe case presents tbe single question as to tbe construction and effect of the attachment law, which went into operation after the alleged fraudulent act complained of had taken place. The fact that only six months separated the act from the law which, for the first time, made it cause for seizure of the parties’ goods, makes no difference. It stands on grounds as clear as though six years had intervened. The principle…
1Opinion of the Court
Handy, J.,
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:
This was an attachment for debt, sued out under the 5th section of Aft. 2 of the attachment law, Rev. Code of 1857, 372, upon the affidavit of the plaintiff that the defendant, Hilzheim, had theretofore disposed of his property or some part of it, and of the property of Anderson & Hilzheim or some part of it, for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, and the creditors of the firm of Hilzheim & Anderson. This affidavit was made and the attachment issued thereon, after the passage of the law in the Rev. Code above referred to. The defendant…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Galusha v. WendtSupreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- Judd v. JuddMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
- Daniels v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1910
- Excelsior Manufacturing Co. v. KeyserMississippi Supreme Court · 1884
- Howard v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1951
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.