White Pine news weekly mining review. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1910-1920, 1915-05-30
Unusual Point
Is Brought Up
ATTORNEY CHANDLER CLAIMS
THERE Is NOTHING BEFORE
COURT IN DAMAGE SUIT WHEN
ATTACHMENT Is RELEASED.

absorbing story in the district court
last Thursday when Attorney Charles
5. Chandler representing plaintiff in
the $4,000 damage suit instituted
by Max Herman of McGill against E.
w. Hulse contended in the proceed
ings on motion for additional secur-
attorneys for Hulse directed that the
attachment be released, it operated
as an absolute dissolution and con-
sequently there was nothing before
the court in which to act.
Mr.. Chandler asserted that the at
tachment had gone out of existence
and that the court had no right to
consider the sufficiency of security
and could not demand additional
bonds in support of. an attachment
which does not exist, and that any
order which may be made in support
of the motion would be nullity. His
objection was overruled by the court
and an exception was taken.
Attorney for plaintiff also protest
ed that the court had no authority to
inquire into the sufficiency of under.
taking for a writ that no longer ex
lists, because 1t had been discharged
through delivery by defendant and
acceptance of undertaking and cash
security conditioned to pay any judg.
ment that might be recovered to the
extent of $4,000 Upon being over.
ruled by Judge McFadden Mr.. Chan
dler again entered an exception.
After Chandler had admitted il
open court that one OF the securities
on Herman's bond was unable t.
qualify on the original attachment
he said that it was not supported
by two good and sufficient suretie.
for double the amount specified in
the undertaking. Attorney Boremar
then asked for an order requiring an
additional bond of s3S00.
The sheriff's return was brough
to the attention of the court by Mr.
Chandler. Boreman objected to the
consideration of the document be-
cause 1T was filed subsequent to the
motion and for reason that there was
nothing new before the court except
the question of additional surety.
After his contention failed to gain
the approval of the court. Boreman
noted an exception to the ruling.
When Chandler attempted to get
the sheriff s return before the court;
council for Hulse claimed that the
proceeding was improper, as it was
reversing the regular order of things
upon the hearing of the motion.
Plaintiff declared that it was not
necessary to offer in evidence one of
the papers, as it was file of the
court, and the judge had as much
right to resort to it at any time as he
had to complaint or answer. He
said that it was a matter that the
court must take notice of at this
stage of the proceedings.
II was the belief of Attorney Bore
man that where a motion had been
filed as in the present instance. that
counsel for Herman could not with
draw it and come in and file some
other paper subsequently as a part
OF the case. He said that it put the
plaintiff in the position of introduc-
ing his case before the moving party
had an opportunity of presenting his
side.
1T seems to me that this motion
has been regularly filed, said Judge
McFadden. 'and should be regularly
determined, and | am of the opinion
that Boreman's objection at this
time is good You may proceed to
hear the motion Chandler than OBJ
jected to the taking of further testi-
mony, because there was nothing be-
fore the court for consideration, after
entering an exception to the court S
ruling.
Boreman asked that the matter be
deferred until later date as he de-
sired to look into the authorities
submitted by opposing counsel.
Chandler offered no objection and the
hearing was continued until next