The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-07-04
THE sTEENB0CK CASE IN THE sU
PREME COURT OF. APPEALS. :
DECISION IN F1voR or p cLA1FPF1Is d co
FOUR UsURY CASES DECIDED.
THE VIRGINIA ATTACHMENT LAW.

Several interesting and important causes
were decided by the Supreme Court of yir-
ginia on yesterday, all the Judges being
present. &@5t
The case of claffiin s. Co., of New York,
| vs. Steenhock s. Co., of this city, has ex-
cited great interest here and in other COM
mercial communities, both on account of the
large amount involved and because of the
legal questions to be passed in review by
the Court. 1t comes up from Judge Burn
hams Court The following lis the decision
| of the Supreme Court, all the Judges con-
curing: i, ...- !,
eThe Court is Of opinion that the said
Hastings Court did not err in overruling
the objection of the plaintiffs to the juris-
diction of the said court at o monthly term
defendants to abate the said attachments on
| the ground that the same was issued upon
false suggestions and without sufficient
cause. SD s.r.rssr 70 sr!.-..,j Ss.1 -Ia4nu 81
"And the Court is further Of opinion
that the said Hastings Court did not err in
hearing and deciding the said motion with
out the intervention of g jury. I'- ''s'1 =
g But the Court is also of opinion that
the said Hastings Court did err in deciding
that the said attachment was issued upon
false suggestions and without sufficient
cause, and in rendering judgment that the
said attachment be abated. =.
| "Therefore, it is considered that the said
| judgment be reversed and annuRed, and
that the plaintiffs recover against the de-
PENDANTS their costs by them expended in
the, prosecution of their said Sapersedeas
aforesaid here. And this Court proceeding
to enter such Judgment as the said Hastings
Court ought to have entered, it is further
considered that the motion Of the defend
ants to abate the said attachment on the
ground that the same was issued upon false
suggestions and without sufficient cause be
overruled; and that the plaintiffs recover
against the defendants their costs by them
about their defence to the said motion in
the said Hastings Court expended. And it
is ordered that this carse be remanded to
the said Hastings Court for further pro-
ceedings to be had therein" ...
The only written opinion delivered in this
case was that Of Judge Moncure. The other
Judges delivered oral opinions upon o point
of great interest and Importance in relation
to the construction Of the second and TWEEN
ty-second sections Of the chapter Of the Code
concerning attachments. S's.'s -. ..'
Judge Moncure was Of opinion that when
an attachment given in pending suit un-
der the second section, and q motion is made
to abate it under the twenty section,
on the ground that it was sued out " on false
suggestions, or without sufficient cause"
the question for the decision of the
Court is the same as it would be
in an action against the plaintiff for mali
ciously suing out an attachment Of the same
kind-namely, whether the person on
whose affidavit the attachment was sued
out believed, and had probable cause to be-
leve, that the defendant was removing his
effects, or intended to remove them, &C., as
the case might be and that If it should ap-
pear that the affiant did 80 believe, and that
he had probable cause for his belief, the at
tachment should not be abated, although
the Co,.rt should be Of opinion, upon al
the evidence, that, in point of fact, the de-
fendant was not removing, or did not in
tend to remove, his effects, as believed by
the afiant.
The other Judges we're of opinion that
upon such q motion the question to be de-
cided is whether, upon all the facts rs they
appear, there was at the time OF suing out
the attachment probable cause to believe
that the defendant was removing or intend
ed to remove his. effects, and that II the
Court should be satisfied upon all the evil
uence that the defendant really was not
removing his effects, or really did not in
tend to remove them, the attachment ought
to be abated; although it should be salts
fed, also, that the atfiant believed that the
defendant YVES removing his effects, or in
tended to remove them, and that the facts,
as they appeared to- him at the time,
justified him in entertaining that belief.
They thought that the question on such g,
motion is, whether there was probable or
sufficient cause in the actual facts of the
case as they appeared to the Court, and not
whether there was probably sufficient
cause In such facts as were known to the
affiant, and that the question therefore
was not the same as in on action for mali
ciously suing out an attachment. g,~us.
Judge RiYes, however, had no difficulty
in concurring with Judge Moncure in o
reversal of ofthejudgment in this case. Judge
Joynes said that upon his construction OF
the attachment law, which he explained in
detail and at considerable length, and con-
sidering the weight which, under the rules
established by the Court, he was bound to
give to the opinion of the court below, he
had some doubt whether the judgment in
this case ought to be reversed, but that his
impressions on this subject were not Of SO
divided character as to induce him to dis
sent from the Judgment. Judge Joynes
stated that he would file 9 written opinion
hereafter, ss. sgas s-s-f ,E.arEga --a
..-... THE UsURY GASES. -g, .-...ts E.
The three cases of Brummel & Co. Us.
Enders, Sutton s. Co., same Us. Hills ex-
ecutor, and same Us. James Gray's Sons, in
volved the same principles and presented
substantially the same facts: sdt gaso Eaitja
In the first named case, -Brummel L Co.
executed their negotiable notes payable. to
the order Of -~=---, (the name Of the per
son being left blank and delivered them
to B. w. Green to be sold by him for their
benefit, by whom they were sold to Enders,
Sutton & Co, at o discount exceeding the
rate of six per cent. per annum for the
time ihe notes had to run. The Circuit
Court instructed the jury in substance that
if Enders, Sutton s. Co, did not know that
the notes were made for sale, OF that they
wero sold for the benefit Of the makers, the
transaction was not usurious, thus applying
to the case the principles laid down by the
majority of the Judges in Whitworth Us.
Adams, The District Court affirmed the
judgment of Judge Meredith, Of the Circuit
Court, and the judgment of that court
was approved by the Court Of Appeals.
Judge Joynes in his opinion, in which Judge
Monc,lre concurrcd, held that as Whitworth
Us. Adams was the decision of q majority Of