Mack, Stadler & Co. v. Jacobs

Citations

• 70 Miss. 429

Syllabus

<p>1. Attachment. Non-resident. Debt not due. Plea in abatement.</p> <p>Since, to authorize an attachment against a debtor on the ground of non-residence, the debt must be due, a plea in abatement that it was not due when suit was begun is sufficient.</p> <p>2. Same. Fraud of defendant. Insolvency Relief of plaintiff. Instruction.</p> <p>Where, in attachment, the issue is whether defendant had converted, or was about to convert, his property into money, with intent to place it beyond the reach of creditors, it is proper to refuse an instruction that if defendant led plaintiff to believe he was insolvent, and that he was about to so convert property, the jury shall find for plaintiff; unless the question is one of defendant’s estoppel to deny the ground of attachment, plaintiff’s belief as to defendant’s solvency, or the truth of the grounds of attachment, is immaterial.</p> <p>3. Same. Damages. Act 1884. Special verdict. Instruction.</p> <p>Under the act of 1884 (Laws, p. 76) the jury, in attachment, may assess punitive damages against the plaintiff, if it certifies in the verdict that it believes that the attachment was sued out “ recklessly or wantonly, and without probable cause, or with intent to oppress the defendant.’’ In such ease, the plaintiff cannot complain of instructions that impose on defendant the greater burden of showing that the attachment was maliciously sued out.</p> <p>4. Constitutional Law. Act 1884. Verdict. Finality.</p> <p>Section 1 of said act of 1884 is not unconstitutional because it provides that the jury may render a special verdict, and assess punitive damages against the plaintiff in attachment in certain cases, and that “ any verdict they may assess shall stand,” unless the court shall certify that it is grossly unconscionable, or unwarranted by the facts. The legislature may prescribe the terms on which creditors may resort to the extraordinary remedy by attachment.</p>