National Surety Co. v. Love

Nebraska Supreme Court

National Surety Co. v. Love

168 N.W. 597, 102 Neb. 633, 1918 Neb. LEXIS 123

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJune 26, 1918

DocketNo. 19958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 N.W. 597 (National Surety Co. v. Love) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Surety Co. v. Love, 168 N.W. 597, 102 Neb. 633, 1918 Neb. LEXIS 123 (Neb. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Cornish, J.

Appeal from a judgment quashing the writ, of attachment, issued on the statutory ground of nonresidency, the trial court finding that the defendant was at the time a resident of Sioux county'. The evidence shows that he was not at the time in Sioux county,- and that for several months he had spent most of his time in South Dakota.

When the inquiry is directed to the place of residence where summons may he served, the one who says it was at some particular place should at once designate it. This saves mental work and worry. It furnishes a starting point for the investigation. The record does not disclose clearly just where in Sioux county defendant contends his home was. It would probably be either on the land attached or at the home of Mrs. Doyle. But the sheriff found the farm house untenanted and unfurnished, with unmistakable evidence that a late occupant was bovine. If defendant lived at Mrs. Doyle’s home, then it is stránge that neither he nor she has said so. She denied it to the sheriff on his search, and to another witness.

If the contention is, as is likely, that defendant’s domicile is shown to be in Sioux county, it must be answered that this is not sufficient. Under the attachment statute, the debtor must have a place of residence in the state, either of a temporary or permanent character, at which a service of summons may be lawfully made.

The motion upon which the court acted, although in form a-special appearance objecting to jurisdiction oyer the person of defendant, asks that the writ of attach[635]*635ment “be quashed and held for naught.” This motion and the court’s order entitle plaintiff, under section 7776, Rev. St. 1913, to appeal.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed.

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

Cornish, J.

Appeal from a judgment quashing the writ, of attachment, issued on the statutory ground of nonresidency, the trial court finding that the defendant was at the time a resident of Sioux county'. The evidence shows that he was not at the time in Sioux county,- and that for several months he had spent most of his time in South Dakota.

When the inquiry is directed to the place of residence where summons may he served, the one who says it was at some particular place should at once designate it. This saves mental work and worry. It furnishes a starting point for the investigation. The record does not disclose clearly just where in Sioux county defendant contends his home was. It would probably be either on the land attached or at the home of Mrs. Doyle. But the sheriff found the farm house untenanted and unfurnished, with unmistakable evidence that a late occupant was bovine. If defendant lived at Mrs. Doyle’s home, then it is stránge that neither he nor she has said so. She denied it to the sheriff on his search, and to another witness.

If the contention is, as is likely, that defendant’s domicile is shown to be in Sioux county, it must be answered that this is not sufficient. Under the attachment statute, the debtor must have a place of residence in the state, either of a temporary or permanent character, at which a service of summons may be lawfully made.

The motion upon which the court acted, although in form a-special appearance objecting to jurisdiction oyer the person of defendant, asks that the writ of attach[635]*635ment “be quashed and held for naught.” This motion and the court’s order entitle plaintiff, under section 7776, Rev. St. 1913, to appeal.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.W. 597, 102 Neb. 633, 1918 Neb. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-surety-co-v-love-neb-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack