Deupree v. Eisenach
Citation | 9 Ga. 598 |
Decision Date | 31 May 1851 |
Docket Number | No. 107.,107. |
Parties | William H. Deupree, plaintiff in error. vs. John Eisenach, defendant. |
Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Attachment, in Oglethorpe Superior Court. Decision by Judge Baxter, April Term, 1851.
The attachment in this case was sued out by Edward C. Shackelford, as the attorney of William H. Deupree. The affidavit stated, that deponent "was informed and believed that defendant resided out of the State, so that the ordinary process of law could not be served upon him."
On motion, the Court dismissed the attachment, on the ground that the affidavit was insufficient, because the deponent did not swear, positively, as to the non-residence of defendant.
This decision is assigned as error.
Thomas R. R. Cobb, for plaintiff in error.
Joseph H. Lumpkin, Jr., for defendant in error.
Judge Lumpkin did not preside during the argument and decision of this case.
By the Court.—Warner, J., delivering the opinion.
By the 2d section of the Act of 1799, an attachment is authorized to issue upon complaint made on oath by the creditor, that his debtor resides out of this State. Here the party suing out the attachment states, in his affidavit, that he is "informed and believes" that his debtor resides out of the State. The Act of 29th December, 1836, relates to the indebtedness of the de-fendant, and not to his residence. In Levy vs. Milman et al. (7 Ga. R. 170,) we held, that inasmuch as the process of attachment, was a summary remedy given by Statute to the creditor, that it must be construed strictly. The argument is, that the Court ought to relax the rule, because agents and attorneys cannot swear positively as to the residence of the debtor, but only as to their information and belief. The Legislature have thought proper to relax the rule in regard to the indebtedness, but have not done so as it regards the residence of the debtor; and until the Legislature shall interfere, we feel constrained to adhere to the words of the Statute.
Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
AFFIDAVIT TO ATTACHMENT. Neal v. Gordon, 60...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Crane Co. v. Epworth Hotel Construction & Real Estate Co.
-
Wilson v. Arnold
...is in direct violation of the statute: 2 Doug. Mich., 432; 4 Denio 93; Ibid., 118; 4 Hill 598; 3 Mich. 278; 2 Mich. 419; 1 McLean 471; 9 Ga. 598. affidavits do not show that the debt was due to Hathaway, as the statute requires. The proceedings in the attachment case are void, for the reaso......
-
Krutina v. Culpepper
...... the case of Neal vs. Gordon, 60 Ga. 112, and the. argument was made upon permission granted to review that. decision. It was held in Deupree vs. Eisenach, 9 Ga. 598, and in Stowers vs. Carter, 28 Ga. 351, that the. affidavit must be positive as to the ground of the. attachment. This ......