26 Ala. 670
Decided January 15, 1855
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1855-01-15
<p>1. When an attachment is sued out in a case not authorized by law, a motion to quash it is not the proper remedy, nor is the refusal to quash on motion re-vísatele on error.</p> <p>2. But if a motion to quash were proper in such case, the objection is waived by the failure to make it at the iirst term, and by afterwards appearing and pleading to the merits.</p>
Relies on Jordan v. Hazard · Burroughs v. Wright
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1855-01-15
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1933
8 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 →
¶1—The only error assigned is, that the court refused the motion to quash the attachment. Such refusal cannot be questioned on error : neither is a motion to quash the remedy in such cases.—Jordan v. Hazard, 10 Ala. 221-6. But, if it were, the defendant waived it, by failing to make it at the first term of the court, and. by afterwards appearing and pleading to the merits.—Burroughs v. Wright, 3 Ala. 43.
¶2Judgment affirmed.