Brown & Ketcham Iron Co. v. L. P. Hazen & Co.

Hamilton Circuit Court

Brown & Ketcham Iron Co. v. L. P. Hazen & Co.

20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 490, 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 48, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 148

Hamilton Circuit Court·Decided January 4, 1908·Published

Opinion

SMITH, J.

Upon the authority of Ward v. Ward, 10 Circ. Dec. 656 (20 R. 136), we are of the opinion that the affidavit for attachment filed herein was void. This being so, did the giving of a bond by the defendant below to discharge the attachment have the effect of submitting the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court? We think not. See Saxton v. Plymire, 2 Circ. Dec. 118 (3 R. 209). The court therefore erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error to discharge the attachment, and said judgment is reversed.

Swing and Oiffln, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SMITH, J.

Upon the authority of Ward v. Ward, 10 Circ. Dec. 656 (20 R. 136), we are of the opinion that the affidavit for attachment filed herein was void. This being so, did the giving of a bond by the defendant below to discharge the attachment have the effect of submitting the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court? We think not. See Saxton v. Plymire, 2 Circ. Dec. 118 (3 R. 209). The court therefore erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error to discharge the attachment, and said judgment is reversed.

Swing and Oiffln, JJ., concur.

Brown & Ketcham Iron Co. v. L. P. Hazen & Co., 20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 490, 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 48, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 148 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1908).

Pincite

20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 490 (Brown & Ketcham Iron Co. v. L. P. Hazen & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.