Caulfield v. Bittenger

• Decision Date: 19 September 1893
• Citation: 56 N.W. 302,37 Neb. 542
• Parties: CAULFIELD v. BITTENGER ET AL.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

37 Neb. 542

56 N.W. 302

CAULFIELD

v.BITTENGER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Sept. 19, 1893.

Syllabus by the Court.

An action can be maintained on a claim before it is due only in the exceptional cases enumerated in section 237 of the Code.

Error to district court, Dawes county; Crites, Judge.

Action by John S. Caulfield against Guy L. Bittenger and another. Defendants had judgment, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.E. S. Ricker, (James A. Powers, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.

Alfred Bartow, for defendants in error.

POST, J.

This is a proceeding in error, and brings up for review the judgment of the district court of Dawes county reversing an order of the county judge of said county, overruling the motion of the defendants in error to discharge an attachment issued at the instance of the plaintiff in error. The material facts are as follows: On the 9th day of March, 1891, the plaintiff in error, Caulfield, filed with the county judge an account, of which the following is a copy:

“John S. Caulfield vs. Guy L. Bittenger, Ralph R. Bittenger.

Bought of John S. Caulfield.

+---------------------------------------------+
                ¦1890.                                ¦       ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Nov. 18. To merchandise per bill rend¦$ 4 30 ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Nov. 26.                             ¦14 13  ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Dec. 10.                             ¦67 48  ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Dec. 10.                             ¦5 08   ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Dec. 13.                             ¦2 00   ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Dec. 17.                             ¦1 25   ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Dec. 30.                             ¦1 02   ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Jan. 2.                              ¦20 73  ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Jan. 6.                              ¦11 93  ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Jan. 8.                              ¦10 55  ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Jan. 10.                             ¦1 00   ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feb. 6.                              ¦13 72  ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feb. 9.                              ¦32     ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feb. 11.                             ¦6 60   ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feb. 14.                             ¦1 80   ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feb. 16.                             ¦1 74   ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Total                                ¦$162 93¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦Feb. 28. By mdse returned            ¦1 74   ¦
                +-------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦                                     ¦$161 19¦
                +---------------------------------------------+
                

Omaha, county of Douglas, state of Nebraska. March 6, 1891. On this day appeared before me, John S. Morrison, a notary public in and for said county, Frank J. Coates, who, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is bookkeeper for John S. Caulfield, and that the foregoing account against G. L. & R. R. Bittenger is correct and just and wholly unpaid, to the best of his knowledge and belief.”

On the same day, Caulfield, by his attorney, filed an affidavit for attachment, which, so far as it is material to the question presented by the record in this case, is as follows: “E. S. Ricker, attorney for the said plaintiff, John S. Caulfield, makes oath that the claim in this action is for the payment of money only upon account for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendants, at their request within one year prior to the commencement of this action, and which account affiant believes is not wholly due. And the said E. S. Ricker also makes oath that the said claim is just, and that the plaintiff, John S. Caulfield, ought, as he believes, to recover thereon one hundred sixty-one and 19-100 dollars. He also makes oath that the defendants, Guy L. Bittenger and Ralph R. Bittenger, are about to remove their property, or a part thereof, out of the county, with the intent to defraud their creditors; and are about to...