1 Blackf. 25
Decided November 12, 1818
Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1818-11-12
— An attachment issued in this case against the property of James Hamilton and Miihael Jones, upon an affidavit, which merely stated, as to the former, that he was a sojourner of the county in which the writ was sued out, and that the ordinary process of law could not bé served on him.
Relies on Bartle v. Coleman
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1818-11-12
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1882
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1This affidavit is defective as to one of the defendants below, in not showing that he was privately removing, or about to remove from the county. Ind. Terr. Stat. 1811, p. 46. And as the attachment is against the property of both, and the judgment against them both, the proceedings are erroneous
¶2The judgment is reversed, with costs*
¶3 If a joint judgment against two, be erroneous as to one, it must be té. versed as to both. Battle v. Coleman, 6 Wheat. 475.