Sweeny v. Cochran

Indiana Supreme Court

Sweeny v. Cochran

19 Ind. 206

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 15, 1862

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 Ind. 206 (Sweeny v. Cochran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sweeny v. Cochran, 19 Ind. 206 (Ind. 1862).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Sweeney and McClelland sued Cochran on a note. They filed together, in the clerk’s office, a complaint on the note, a copy of the note, and an affidavit and bond for an attachment. The affidavit for the attachment is in the language of the form prescribed by statute, (2 Gr. & H., p. 382,) and being filed with the complaint on the cause of action, and being titled with the names of the parties, etc., was sufficient. The Court quashed the attachment because the affidavit was not sufficient.

The judgment on the note is affirmed, that quashing the attachment is reversed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Sweeney and McClelland sued Cochran on a note. They filed together, in the clerk’s office, a complaint on the note, a copy of the note, and an affidavit and bond for an attachment. The affidavit for the attachment is in the language of the form prescribed by statute, (2 Gr. & H., p. 382,) and being filed with the complaint on the cause of action, and being titled with the names of the parties, etc., was sufficient. The Court quashed the attachment because the affidavit was not sufficient.

The judgment on the note is affirmed, that quashing the attachment is reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Ind. 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweeny-v-cochran-ind-1862.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack