¶1It is said by this court in Robinson v. Melvin, 14 Kas. 487, in reviewing an order of a district court discharging an attachment, that the judgment of the district court, even upon written testimony, is entitled to consideration, and in many doubtful cases may sometimes turn the balance in favor of affirmance. These remarks have special fitness in this case. There.seems to be sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the order of the district court, and therefore it will be affirmed.
27 Kan. 783
Macfarland v. Buck
Decided January 15, 1882
Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1882-01-15
Action brought in the district court of Smith county, by Macfarland against Buck and two others, to recover $1,500, with interest at ten per cent, from November 4, 1880, and $1,750, with interest at eight per cent, from the date aforesaid. January 7, 1882, the district judge, Hon. Joel Holt, upon a hearing at chambers, made an order discharging the attachment therein, at the cost of the plaintiff, who brings this case here for review.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1906
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1882-01-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →