Case Name: THOMAS D. SINGLETON. vs. JACOB FRANK
Court: Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1892-06-13
Citations: 1 Tuck. & Cl. 46
Docket Number: No. 30,986
Parties: THOMAS D. SINGLETON. vs. JACOB FRANK.
Judges: The Chief Justice and Justices James and Bradley sitting.
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 21
Pages: 46–47

Head Matter:
THOMAS D. SINGLETON. vs. JACOB FRANK.
Attachment ; Jurisdiction.
This Court, under Sec. 769, R. S. D. C., has no jurisdiction of suits cognizable by Justices of the Peace, when the sum in controversy is less than $50, and cannot take jurisdiction of a suit involving less than that sum, in order .to allow the plaintiff to begin attachment proceedings against the defendant.
At Law.
No. 30,986.
Decided June 13, 1892.
The Chief Justice and Justices James and Bradley sitting.
Hearing on an appeal by the plaintiff from an order sustaining the defendant’s motion to quash a writ of attachment.
Affirmed.
Mr. Percy Metzger for plaintiff (appellant).
Messrs. Whitaker & Prevost for defendant (appellee).

Opinion:
The plaintiff, Thomas D. Singleton, on October u, 1890, filed a declaration on the common counts against the defendant, Jacob Frank, claiming the sum of $47.50 alleged to be due upon an open account. With the filing of his declaration the plaintiff caused to be issued a writ of attach7 ment against certain personal property alleged to belong to the defendant. The grounds of the attachment, as stated in the supporting affidavit, were the non-residence of the defendant, and "that the defendant had removed a portion of his effects, and was about to remove all of his property from the District in order to defraud his creditors."
The defendant, on February 16, 1891, filed a motion to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. The motion was on March 5, 1891, sustained, and the suit dismissed. From the order of the special term dismissing the suit, the plain tiff appealed to the General Term, where, on June 13, 1892, the judgment of the court below was affirmed.