Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

40 Md. 477

Stouffer v. Niple

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 24, 1874

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1874-06-24

The appellee on the 31st of May, 1813, sued out an attachment on warrant against the appellant as an absconding debtor. The affidavit of the plaintiff stated that he knew and believed that John Stouffer, Jr., had absconded. On the 11th of November, 1813, the defendant appeared and moved to quash the attachment for the following reasons: 1. That the defendant was a citizen and resident of the State of Maryland at the time of the issuing of the attachment. 2.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1971

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-06-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

•Robinson, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court below, overruling a motion to quash a writ of attachment.

¶3Sec. 3, Art. 10 of the Code provides, “that every person who shall actually run away, abscond, or fly from justice, or secretly remove himself from his place of abode, with intention to evade the payment of his just debts, or to injure or defraud his creditors, shall be considered as having absconded.”

¶4It is not necessary that the debtor should actually leave the State, to'entitle a creditor to a writ of attachment. If he absconds or flies from justice, or secretly removes from his usual place of residence, with the intent to evade the payment of his debts, or to injure or defraud his creditors, he is declared by the statute as having absconded. Field, et al. vs. Adreon, et al., 7 Md., 209.

¶5The fact that the appellant was a registered voter in Washington County, and had voted at the November election of 1873, was not sufficient, in our opinion, to overcome the proof offered on the part of the appellee tending to prove that the appellant had left his usual place of residence or had concealed himself for the purpose of avoiding process, and with intent thereby to evade.the payment of his debts.

¶6The motion to quash was properly overruled.

¶7Judgment affirmed.

/40/md/477 · .json · Public domain