Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 Ala. 250

Scott v. Macy

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1841

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1841-06-15

THIS action was commenced in the Court below, by the plaintiff in error, against the defendants, by writ of capias ad respondendum. As auxilliary to this process, the plaintiff on affidavit, obtained also a writ of attachment. The bond executed by him for the attachment, does not disclose the term to which the writ of attachment is returnable, and the attachment is made returnable to the first1 instead of the second Monday in July.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1841-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1909

4 state decisions

101841185018601870188018901900decided

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 →

ORMOND, J.

¶1This attachment was issued, as auxilliary to a writ, which had been sued out for the recovery of the same debt, and which the law under which it issued, required should be filed with the papers in the original cause, and constitute a part thereof.” In such a case, the writ of attachment is not the leading process in the suit, the parties being in Court by the writ which had previously issued. No possible injury could result from the mistake of the time when the Court was held, in which the suit was pending. However, therefore, the law might be, if the suit had been commenced by original attachment, in a case like the present, the error was a mere clerical misprision, and as such, amendable under the influence of the statute which authorizes amendments of defects of form in attachments. Aik. Dig. 42.

¶2*251It is the settled law of this Court, that an attachment will not be quashed on account of a defective bond, unless the plaintiff is unwilling to execute a good bond, as is shewn by the cases cited by the plaintiff in error. There being, therefore, no sufficient reason for quashing this attachment, the judgment of the Court below is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

/3/ala/250 · .json · Public domain