Case Name: J. Langdon & Bro. v. Conklin & Martin
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1859-12
Citations: 10 Ohio St. 439
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. Langdon & Bro. v. Conklin & Martin.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 10
Pages: 354–355

Head Matter:
J. Langdon & Bro. v. Conklin & Martin.
It is not competent for a defendant in attachment to move the court to discharge the attachment on the ground that the property attached does not belong to him. And it is error for a court or judge at chambers to sustain such motion.
Error to the court of common pleas of Montgomery county. Deserved in the district court.
On the 29th of November, 1853, an order of attachment was issued out of the court of common pleas of Montgomery county, on the allowance of the court, in a civil action that day brought therein by J. Langdon & Bro. against Conklin & Martin, upon claims not -then due. On the next day the order of attachment was levied upon certain property found in the possession of the defendant, 'Conklin.
On the 13th day of April, 1854, the defendants filed a *motion “ to discharge the attachment: 1. Because the property attached belongs to John W. Harries; 2. Because said Harries has had a trial of the right of property in'the same, pursuant to the •statute, and the same was held to belong to said Harries.”
November 23^ 1854, the affidavits of Conklin and Harries were filed in support of the motion, to prove that the property attached ■belonged to Harries. December 19, 1854, the court found that the property attached did not belong to the defendants, but to Harries, :and thereupon “.ordered that said property be released from said Attachment, and that said writ be discharged, so far as said property is concerned,” and that defendants recover of the plaintiff's their ■costs. As to the original claims of the plaintiffs, the cause was ‘Continued.
The plaintiffs excepted to the order of the court discharging the .attachment, and now seek to reverse said order, assigning the same .for error.
Vallandigham & McMahon, for plaintiffs.
■John Howard, for defendants.

Opinion:
By the Court.
It is not competent for a defendant in attachment to move the court to discharge the attachment on the ground that the property attached does not belong to him. And it is error ior a court or judge at chambers to sustain such motion.
Order discharging attachment reversed.