Case Name: FRIEDMAN BROS. ET AL. v. H. W. COTTON, SR.
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1876-09
Citations: 1 Shan. Cas. 619
Docket Number: 
Parties: FRIEDMAN BROS. ET AL. v. H. W. COTTON, SR.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Cases with Notes and Annotations
Volume: 1
Pages: 619–619

Head Matter:
FRIEDMAN BROS. ET AL. v. H. W. COTTON, SR.
Jackson,
September Term, 1876.
CHANCERY PLEADING. ATTACHMENT. Sufficiency of plea.
To an attachment bill on the g-round that the defendant is a nonresident, a plea in abatement, alleging' that the dedendant was, at the time the bill was filed, and the attachment issued and levied, a citizen of Haywood county, Tennessee, and not a nonresident of the state, is sufficient, and good in form and substance.

Opinion:
McFarland, J.,
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
This is an attachment bill. The ground for an- attachment alleged is, "that the said H. W. Cotton, Sr., is a resident of the State of Arkansas, and resides out of the State of Tennessee. '5 The defendant pleaded in abatement "that he was at the time and date of the filing of complainant's bill against him in this cause, and at the time and date of issuance and levying the attachment, a citizen of Haywood county, Tennessee, and not a nonresident of the state."
The chancellor upon argument held the plea sufficient, and gave the complainants leave to take issue thereon, which they did; but as they failed to sustain the allegations of their bill as to the nonresidence of the defendant, the bill was dismissed. We think the plea good in form and substance, and properly verified, and upon the issue thus made, the onus being upon the complainant, the bill was properly dismissed.
Affirm the decree with costs.