The Nevada journal., 1857-01-02
THE ATTACHMENT Law.

of late, been making an universal on
slaugLt on our present attachment law,
but it seems to us that no conclusive
reasons have been given for its repeal.
Its opponents, so far, appear to content
themselves with presenting extreme
cases in which the law might lie made,
and probably has been made, to operate
hardly upon individuals, but it must be
remembered that no human law has
even been or can be, SO perfect as to
preclude all possibility of oppression
The real question is, can more good be
accomplished more justice be done
with the law than without it.
In relation to debts created by honest
contracts between man and man, there
are only two main rules by which their
payment can be regulated First, to
enforce them by process of law. Second
to make them mere debts of honor, pay.
able at the will of the debtor. The lat
ter we have not yet seen advocated bv
any of the enemies of attachment. 1t
is rule that may possibly work well,
when the world gets to that blissful Pc
riod in its history shadowed forth in the
christian faith, when .the lion shall lie
down with the lamb, and the devil be
chained for thousand years." but in
"these present evil days" the ''honor of
gentleman would be very shadowy
equivalent for that most substantial of
all things-money.
If, then, the old rule is to be adhered
to, and it is right that "men who are able
to pay and won't pay should be made to
pay" what valid objection is there to
the attachment law?
The only way to make a man pay
debt, is to seise his property and sell it,
and the only difference between an at
tachment suit and an ordinary action
without attaching is, that in the former
you seize his property at the commence
ment of the suit to satisfy Judgment
which you expect to obtain, and in the
latter you seise his propnrty at the end
of the suit, to satisfy a judgment which
you have obtained. Then, as to the
result, there is this further difference,
that if you commence your suit without
attachment and undertake to seise his
property to satisfy the judgment which
you have obtained, you will find that
it has become the property of his friend
or else that it can't be found in the
neighborhood. Who then are oppressed
by an attachment law, unless it be those
who desire to dispose of their property
between the commencement of suit and
its end, for the purpose of defrauding
their creditors
AS to the argument drawn from the
hardship of closing up mans business
for small debt, we don't see its force.
A man who is able and willing to pay
his just liabilities, is always able to give
a bond, and thus release the attachment
and at any rate, as soon as Judgment
should be recovered, and execution is
sued, his property would be taken, ana
his business closed even if no attach.
ment had been granted, unless in the
meantime he had acted the rascal, and
made a fraudulent disposition of his
effects.
A great deal has been said, too, about
the first attaching creditor compelling
all others unwillingly to follow suit, and
thus forcing an honest debtor into in
solvency, who, had his business been al
lowed to proceed would, in the end,
have been able to satisfy all demands
against him. But how would this be
remedied by repeal of the attachment
law? Attachments are usually taken
out in actions upon plain contracts, to
which there is no defence, and in which
judgment is obtained in ten days. If
there was no attachment law, the cred
itor first commencing suit would be the
first to obtain judgment, and the first to
levy upon property under execution
Would not the rush of creditors be the
same? The only difference would be,
that in the absence of the power to at
tach, the debtor could collude with his
friends and make preferred creditors by
putting in nominal defences to some of
the actions. and letting the others go by
default.
The question, then, as to the repeal
of the attachment law, seems to us to be,
in reality, simply whether or not there
shall be any legal process for the collec-
ton of debts. In California, and espe-