Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-09-21
Abstract of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas. Prepared erpresslytor Me True Democrat, Jy
 F. W. H0ADLEY. ESQ

court of the State of Arkansas
 Prepared expressly for Me True Democrat, (,
 F. W. HoADLEY, ESQ.
 Hathaway,
 Jonas.
 Ihis was an action for wages, as an as- slstant teacher in female school. The de- fendant being about to leave the State. the plalntlH flled an affidavit to the fact. and charging fraud, she also filed an attachment bond Tn the usual form. The clerk issued writ of attachment, with clause of sum- mons; also clause commanding the sheriff. if he could not find property sufficient to satisfy the debt, etc., to take the body of defendanA etc., also clause of garnisb- ment naming garnishees The sheriff re- turned upon the writ that on the Eth of March he went to residence of plaintiff and finding no property, he arrested her under tbe capias clause and held her in custody until the next day, when she was released upon executing bail bond, also that he read the writ in the presence of two of the gar nishees. The defendant at the return term moved to quash the writ, on the ground of its embracing three distinct and inde- pendent remedies for different actions: first. the attachment clause; second, the capias clause, and third, the clause to garnishees. The motion to quash was sustained by the court, and the plaintiff excepted and ap- pealed.
 The Court held.:
 kst That under our statutes, females being privileged from arrest and impri- sonment on any process original or final in any 2vll case, the capias clause was ille- gall4 inserted in the writ. The statutes make no provision for the insertion of a cGp'as clause against the principal defend- ant In the writ of attachment, though it provides for capias against garnishee.
 I'd. The effect of the act of Feb. 3. lS43. to abolish imprisonment in civil cases. was not to enlarge the instances in which a eeap'ds or co. SO. might issue, but to make Vhe statute then in force authorizing arrests and .lmprlsonments for debt imperative, except Tn cases of fraud on the part of the debtor, alleged by the plaintiff and sus- tanned by the affidavits prescribed by the act.
 3d. The writ should not have been ouasb- ed on account of the copias clause. The bad does not vitiate the good.
 4th. It IS not sufficient for the sheriff to read the writ Of attachment in the presence and hearing of the ganishees to bind the effects of the principal defendant in their hands, he must go further, and declare in the presence of one or more citizens of the county that he attached all the property. credits and effects of the defendant in the ha1ds or possession of the garnishees.
 5th. A Judgment to be final must dismiss the parties from the court, discharge them from the action, or conclude their rights to the matter in controversy.
 6th. When a writ is quashed on motion or on plea in abatement of the writ. the effect of the judgment is to dismiss the de- 1endant from court, and for the time. dis charge hlm from the action The plaintiff can proceed no further in the case until he brings the defendant again into court by the issuance and service of an alias writ. The declaration remains in court, but de- claration without writ is no suit-unless the defendant enter his appearance.
 'th Upon the quashal of writ the plain tiff may elect to take an alias, or rest. and tai an appeal or writ of error. If the judgment is reversed he is reversed to his rights under the writ; if it is affirmed he can then take out an alias, and proceed with the cause as he thinks proper.
 The writ of attachment not havinp been properly served the judgment of the court below is affirmed
 Hammett,  Little R. < Nap. R. R. Co. 1egers0"'
 This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the Little Rock and Napoleon RaiIroad :. Company against John J. Hammett in the Jefferson circuit court, Aug. 27th, 1856.
 The suit was for the recovery of calls due and in arrear upon S2,000 of the ca pltal stock of the company subscribed by the defendant. The declaration set out the subscription, the several calls made by the directors, notice thereof to defendant, and his failure to meet them, etc. The defend | ant pleaded: lst, non assumpst; 2d, aul | tieL corporation; 3d, special plea alleging | that the persons named in the first section of the act of incorporation, did not, nor majority of them, open books to receive subscriptions to the capital stock at the time and place in the State of Arkansas, etc, and give notice, etc.. 4th, special plea, that the persons named, etc., did not, etc, proceed to organize said company in manner and form as required.
 The plaintiff took issue to the first plea, and dcmurred to the 2d, Sd and 4th, the court sustained the demurrer, there was trial on the general issue, verdict and iudg- ment for plaintiff, and defendant brought z error.
 AIHe Court held:
 1st. It is not necessary to prove the cor porate existence of railroad company un- der the general issue; they being public cor porations, courts are bound to take judicial notice of existence when they are domestic corporations created by public law
 2d When the statute does not ipso tiacfo create a corporation co instanti, but pre- sage, as a condition precedent to its legal existence, the plea of nul tiel corporation would be good, and the plaintiff would have to reply to it, and prove that the thing was done which the statutes require to be done as a condition precedent to the exis- tence of the corporation.
 3d. When a suit is brought by a corpo- ration, 1t cannot be shown in defence that the plaintiff have forfeited their corporate rights by misuser or nonuser, advantage can be taken of such forfeiture, only on process on behalf of the State, instituted for the purpose of avoiding the charter or act of incorporation, and individuals can not avail themselves of it in collateral suits until 1t is iudiciously declared. Judgment of the court below affirmed.
 For the True Democrat.
 Letter from Memphis