Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

14 Minn. 125

Ely v. Titus

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 15, 1869

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1869-01-15

This action was commenced in the District Court .for Dodge County, and a writ of attachment issued. 'The defendant made a motion to set aside the attachment on the ground, among others, of insufficiency of the affidavit. The motion was denied, and the defendant appeals from the order denying the same to this Court. In this Court the plaintiff urges as an objection to the consideration of the appeal, that no exception was taken to the order ,of the Court below appealed from.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1908

4 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court.

MoMillan, J.

¶2In considering the sufficiency of an affidavit for an attachment made under the existing statute, we held in Murjphy vs. Bwrdy, that the departure of the. defendant from the State, with the intent .specified in the statute, constitutes a separate and distinct ground’ *126of attachment, and that the words “ as deponent verily believes ” in the statute, qualifies that ground only; that the remaining grounds for an attachment are required to be stated without qualification. 13 Minn., 425.

¶3The language of the affidavit for the attachment in the case at bar is, “ the deponent further says, that he verily believes that the said defendant Giles -A. Titus has assigned, secreted, or disposed of his property, with intent to delay and defraud his creditors. ”

¶4TJnder the decision cited, the affidavit in this case is insufficient. There is a palpable difference between the statute under consideration, and that relating to attachments in justices’courts. The respondent urges, “that no exception having been taken to the order of the Court sustaining the attachment, no question is raised for the Supreme Court to review. • Such omission is deemed a waiver. ” This is not correct. When the order or decision constitutes part of, and appears upon the record, if appealable, it may be reviewed; but to decisions upon matters of law, made upon the trial in the progress of a cause, exceptions must be taken and properly settled, or they will not be considered in the.appellate court!

¶5The authorities cited by the respondent, all refer to exceptions of this class. In this case, the defendant moved to dissolve and vacate the attachment, among other grounds, upon the insufficiency of the affidavit. The Court denied the motion, and sustained the attachment. This order under our statute is appealable. Gen. Stat., Ch. 86, Sec. 8, subdivision 2, p. 577.

¶6There are other objections urged to the sufficiency of the affidavit for the attachment in this case, which we need not consider.

¶7The order sustaining the attachment is reversed.

/14/minn/125 · .json · Public domain