Hinds v. Miller
Citations
- 52 Miss. 845
Syllabus
<p>1. Attachment : Garnishment. Notice to non-residents. Act of 1861. Case in judgment.</p> <p>An attachment was sued out by M. against E., A. & Oo. T. & H. H. garnishees. E., A. & Oo. were non-residents, service of process upon them being by publication. Judgments were obtained against the defendants and garnishees. H. H. died, and his widow and heirs were proceeded against by publication. The defendants in attachment were sued by their firm name only. The writ of ' attachment served on the garnishees contained no statement of the grounds for its issuance, etc. There was no order of court for publication against. E., A. & Oo., nor any order for posting notices, nor any order directing the clerk to mail copy of notices, etc. The scire facias against T. H. and the • widow and heirs of H. H., deceased, did not contain a description of the lands upon which execution was sought. Execution was issued against the widow and heirs of H. H., deceased, without the bond required, etc. Held, that this proceeding was commenced under the Oode of 1857, and that art. 5, p. 373, of' that Oode permits writs of attachment to be issued against non-resident debtors by their proper names, or by the name of the partnership, or by whatever other name such debtors may be known, etc.; that the failure to state, in the writ of attachment served upon the garnishees, the grounds for its issuance, renders the judgment voidable merely, and not void; that, under the Oode of ' 1857 (art. 19), no order of court was necessary for publication, nor for posting notices, nor directing the clerk to mail notice to non-residents; that, under the act of 1862, if no newspaper was published in the county where proceedings were begun, then notices must be posted in five public places in the - county, including one at the court house door. This was not done, but, instead thereof, notice was published in a paper in Warren county. This was error; that although the better practice would be to describe the lands in
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b) does not authorize transfer of preadoptive-placement proceeding to tribal court
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Tarbell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.