Singleton v. Frank

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Singleton v. Frank

21 D.C. 46

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 1892

DocketNo. 30,986

StatusPublished

This text of 21 D.C. 46 (Singleton v. Frank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Singleton v. Frank, 21 D.C. 46 (D.C. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff, Thomas D. Singleton, on October u, 1890, filed a declaration on the common counts against the defendant, Jacob Frank, claiming the sum of $47.50 alleged to be due upon an open account. With the filing of his declaration the plaintiff caused to be issued a writ of attach7 ment against certain personal property alleged to belong to the defendant. The grounds of the attachment, as stated in the supporting affidavit, were the non-residence of the defendant, and “that the defendant had removed a portion of his effects, and was about to remove all of his property from the District in order to defraud his creditors.”

The defendant, on February 16, 1891, filed a motion to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. The motion was on March 5, 1891, sustained, and the suit dismissed. From the order of the special term dismissing the suit, the plain[47]*47tiff appealed to the General Term, where, on June 13, 1892, the judgment of the court below was affirmed. *

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

The plaintiff, Thomas D. Singleton, on October u, 1890, filed a declaration on the common counts against the defendant, Jacob Frank, claiming the sum of $47.50 alleged to be due upon an open account. With the filing of his declaration the plaintiff caused to be issued a writ of attach7 ment against certain personal property alleged to belong to the defendant. The grounds of the attachment, as stated in the supporting affidavit, were the non-residence of the defendant, and “that the defendant had removed a portion of his effects, and was about to remove all of his property from the District in order to defraud his creditors.”

The defendant, on February 16, 1891, filed a motion to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. The motion was on March 5, 1891, sustained, and the suit dismissed. From the order of the special term dismissing the suit, the plain[47]*47tiff appealed to the General Term, where, on June 13, 1892, the judgment of the court below was affirmed. *

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 D.C. 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singleton-v-frank-dc-1892.