Case ID: ala_44/html/0197-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "B. F. SAFFOLD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FREE vs. HUKILL, Surviving Partner.
    [ACTION COMMENCED BY OEIGINAIi ATTACHMENT.].
    1. Section 2928 of Revised Code; what statement equivalent to that required by sixth subdivision of. — In an affidavit for attachment, a statement that the defendant “ is endeavoring fraudulently and clandestinely to dispose of his effects,” is equivalent to the case prescribed in the 6th subdivision of section 2928 of the Revised Code.
    Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery.
    Tried before Hon. John D. Cunningham.
    
      The fact upon which the decision is based will be found in the opinion.
    Falkner & Molton, for appellant.
    Chilton & Thorington, contra.
    
   B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

The questions at issue on error, in this case, are the same as those determined in the case of Free v. Howard, Adm’r, at the present term, except that, in the motion to quash the attachment, an additional ground is alleged, to-wit, that the cause for which it was issued is not embraced in the statute.

The affidavit states that the defendant “ is endeavoring fraudulently and clandestinely to dispose of his effects,” &c. This expresses the substance of the case prescribed in the 6th subdivision of section 2928 of the Revised Code.

The judgment is affirmed.