Original application for mandamus, before the Supreme Court.

S. J. McKissack and R. L. McKissack filed their original petition for mandamus in the Supreme Court, in which they allege the following facts : On December 13, 1892, Weitz, Beidler & Oo. sued out an attachment against S. J. McKissack alone for the sum of $1,330 before a justice of the peace of Henry county, returnable to the circuit court of Henry county. Preparatory to the issuance of the writ of attachment, Weitz, Beidler & Oo. made an affidavit in which they alleged that S. J. McKissack had fraudulently disposed of his property, and gave a bond as required by law, payable alone to S. J. McKissack, which bond was so payable at the time it was signed by the sureties thereon. The writ of attachment was levied on certain personal property, supposed to be the property of S. J. McKissack, and the sheriff returned said writ, bond and affidavit to the circuit court of Henry county at the spring term 1893 thereof. At the said term of said court, and before the petitioners, or either of them had. any notice of the levy of said writ of attachment, the plaintiffs in attachment obtained leave from the court to amend, and did amend, the said bond, affidavit and writ of attach-meat by adding in each wherever the name of S. J. Kissack occurred, and immediately after said name, the words, “and R. L. McKissack, doing business under the name of S J. McKissack;’’ making the affidavit read “that S'. J. McKissack and R. L. McKissack, doing business under the name of S. J. McKissack, had fraudulently disposed of their property; “making the bond payable to “S. J. McKissack and R. L. McKissack, doing business under the name of S. J. McKissack;’’ and causing the writ of attachment to be directed against the estate of “S. J. McKissack and-R. L. Mc-Kissack, doing business under the name of S.-J. McKissack.’’ These amendments were made without the knowledge, consent or ratification of the sureties on said attachment bond. The petition then averred that the petitioners, at the spring term 1895 of said court made a motion to dismiss said attachment unless the plaintiffs in said attachment would give or substitute a sufficient bond therein ; and that, on the hearing of said motion, notwithstanding the plaintiffs in attachment appeared and admitted the allegations of said motion to be true, overruled said motion.

On these facts, the prayer of the petition is that the Supreme Court will grant a writ of mandamus, directed to the judge of said circuit court, commanding him to to annul, set aside and declare void the judgment of said court overruling and refusing petitioners’ motion to dismiss said attachment, unless the plaintiffs in said suit would give or substitute' a sufficient bond, and further commanding him to grant said motion.

It was unquestionably the duty of the court to give petitioners protection by requiring Weitz, Beidler & Co. to give a bond or dismiss their case out of court, Code section 2998.

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress