Hallam v. Jones

Decided December 1, 1820

Court of Appeals of Virginia · decided 1820-12-01

Edward Hairam procured a warrant of attachment, against certain goods of John MJPherson, for rent. The defendant not appearing to replevy the goods, Hall am moved the Hustings court of Richmond (to which the warrant was returnable) for judgment. The court gave judgment, and gave a day to Jones and Winston (with whom the officer stored the goods, and who claimed title to them) to interplead.

Decided 1820-12-01

Eoaste, Judge.*

¶1The court is of opinion, that notwithstanding the generality of the expression “ all attachments,” (a) these terms do not extend to attachments for rent, like the one before us. This is evident, not only from a recurrence to the several acts from which that act is compiled, and which make that construction inadmissible, but also from the 13th section immediately following. In that section, the phrase is limited by the expression “ such attachment,” therein used, to attachments for debt only; as is evident from the general provisions to the section aforesaid; which provisions apply, only to attachments of the latter character.

¶2On these grounds, the court reverses the judgment of the Superior court with costs; and allirms that of the court of Hustings.

¶3 Cabell absent.

¶4 Chap. 123, § 12. 1 Ren. Code.