Silver Peak Mines v. Hanchett

80 F. 990, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 3032
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada·Decided May 21, 1897·No. No. 635·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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

80 F. 990 (Silver Peak Mines v. Hanchett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commercial Corp. v. Krueger
262 P. 937 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1927)
Georgia Lumber Co. v. Thompson
129 S.E. 303 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Thedin v. First National Bank
214 P. 956 (Montana Supreme Court, 1923)
Jenks v. Arms
151 N.W. 263 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1915)