Stephenson v. Sloan

Mississippi Supreme Court

Stephenson v. Sloan

65 Miss. 407

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 65 Miss. 407 (Stephenson v. Sloan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stephenson v. Sloan, 65 Miss. 407 (Mich. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Arnold, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

For a debtor to remove, or be about to remove himself or his property out of this state, is ground for attachment against him. Code Sec. 2415.

Under this statute a debtor who removes his property, or a part thereof, from the state, for the purpose of converting it into money, not having, or leaving sufficient property in the state subject to execution to pay his creditors, is liable to attachment, whether his intent in doing so is fraudulent or not. Such is the construction placed on similar statutes in other states, as well as in this state. Drake on Attachments, Secs. 70, 71. Waples on Attachments, 55; Mack & Co. v. McDaniel, 2 McCrary 198; Randolph v. McCain, 34 Ark., 696 ; Haber v. Nassitts, 12 Fla., 589; Pickard v. Samuels, 64 Miss., 822. The action of the Court below in giving and refusing instructions was not in accordance with this view, wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

Arnold, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

For a debtor to remove, or be about to remove himself or his property out of this state, is ground for attachment against him. Code Sec. 2415.

Under this statute a debtor who removes his property, or a part thereof, from the state, for the purpose of converting it into money, not having, or leaving sufficient property in the state subject to execution to pay his creditors, is liable to attachment, whether his intent in doing so is fraudulent or not. Such is the construction placed on similar statutes in other states, as well as in this state. Drake on Attachments, Secs. 70, 71. Waples on Attachments, 55; Mack & Co. v. McDaniel, 2 McCrary 198; Randolph v. McCain, 34 Ark., 696 ; Haber v. Nassitts, 12 Fla., 589; Pickard v. Samuels, 64 Miss., 822. The action of the Court below in giving and refusing instructions was not in accordance with this view, wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 Miss. 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephenson-v-sloan-miss-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack