Silver Peak Mines v. Hanchett

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada

Silver Peak Mines v. Hanchett

80 F. 990, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 3032

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada

DecidedMay 21, 1897

DocketNo. 635

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 80 F. 990 (Silver Peak Mines v. Hanchett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Silver Peak Mines v. Hanchett, 80 F. 990, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 3032 (circtdnv 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

HAWLEY, District Judge

(orally). I think the form of the heading of the affidavit is subject to criticism. The form as to the affidavit of the complaint is certainly much better. But the point that is raised is purely technical in its character, and it goes simply to the form, and not the substance, of the affidavit. The true interpretation to be given to that affidavit is that it is the affidavit of M. A. Murphy, who is the attorney for the corporation. It is not susceptible, in my judgment, of any other judicial interpretation. The law is well settled that an agent or an attorney may make the affidavit. Grocery Co. v. Smith, 61 Mo. App. 665, 669; Drake, Attachm. §§ 93-93b, and authorities there cited; 3 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 207, and authorities there cited. The motion to dissolve the attachment is overruled.

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

HAWLEY, District Judge

(orally). I think the form of the heading of the affidavit is subject to criticism. The form as to the affidavit of the complaint is certainly much better. But the point that is raised is purely technical in its character, and it goes simply to the form, and not the substance, of the affidavit. The true interpretation to be given to that affidavit is that it is the affidavit of M. A. Murphy, who is the attorney for the corporation. It is not susceptible, in my judgment, of any other judicial interpretation. The law is well settled that an agent or an attorney may make the affidavit. Grocery Co. v. Smith, 61 Mo. App. 665, 669; Drake, Attachm. §§ 93-93b, and authorities there cited; 3 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 207, and authorities there cited. The motion to dissolve the attachment is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 F. 990, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 3032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silver-peak-mines-v-hanchett-circtdnv-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack