Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Ind. 447

Collins v. Nichols

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 28, 1856

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1856-05-28

<p>APPEAL from the La Grange Court of Common Pleas. °</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““A party should avail himself of matter in abatement at the earliest opportunity.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 154 Ind. App. 203 - Roe v. Doe

Relies on Wibright v. Wise

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-05-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 1972

10 state decisions

201856186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Gookins, J.

¶1. Collins commenced a suit by attachment before a justice of the peace, alleging that the defendant, Nichols, was a non-resident of the state. On the return day, the parties appeared, and the cause was continued by agreement to a future day, when they met and tried the 'cause. The justice gave judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed to the Common Pleas, where they again appeared, and continued the cause to a subsequent term; at which term the defendant moved that the attachment be quashed, and the suit dismissed, and against the plaintiff’s objection, was permitted to prove, in support of the motion, that at the time the writ of attachment was sued out, he was a resident of La Grange county. The Court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiff excepted.

¶21. A defendant, after appearance, may move to quash the attachment; 2 E. S., p. 70, s. 188; but for matter not apparent on the face of the proceedings, he should plead in abatement. Ibid., p. 455, s. 34, 2. After appealing to the action, a continuance by agreement, a trial, an appeal, and another continuance, it was too late to make the objection *448in any form. A party should avail himself of matter in abatement at the earliest opportunity. Wibright v. Wise, 4 Blackf. 137.—Swift v. Woods, 5 id. 97. 3. That the plaintiff was a resident was no ground for dismissing the suit, after answering to the action, whatever effect it might have had upon the attachment. When a defendant is personally served, or appears to the action, the cause proceeds as in other cases, and judgment is rendered personally. 2 R. S., p. 70, s. 188.

A. Ellison, for the appellant.J. B. Howe, for the appellee.Per Curiam.

¶3The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded for farther proceedings, not inconsistent with this opinion.

/7/ind/447 · .json · Public domain