Whitehead v. N. Y. & Alaska Min. Co.

D. Alaska

Whitehead v. N. Y. & Alaska Min. Co.

1 Alaska 245

CourtDistrict Court, D. Alaska

DecidedOctober 7, 1901

DocketNo. 682

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Alaska 245 (Whitehead v. N. Y. & Alaska Min. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Alaska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whitehead v. N. Y. & Alaska Min. Co., 1 Alaska 245 (D. Alaska 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

WICKERSHAM, District Judge.

On August 5th the defendant made its note to the plaintiff in the sum of $3,000, due in 30 days. A suit was brought on September 21st to collect the note. A writ of attachment was issued out of this court, and certain property of the defendant attached. The defendant now enters a special appearance, and moves to dissolve the attachment because the affidavit of attachment does not disclose sufficient facts upon which to sustain the writ. It appears from the affidavit that, at the time the note was made, a bill of sale was made by the defendant to the plaintiff of certain property, to secure the payment of the note. The plaintiff afterwards discovered that certain machinery supposed to belong to the defendant, and to be included in the bill of sale, was not so included and did not belong to the defendant. There is nothing in the record disclosing that the security taken by the plaintiff was rendered nugatory by any act of the defendant. He should have seen to it that the bill of sale included the property in question. [246]*246The fact that it did not include it would not sustain an attachment under section 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act June 6, 1900, c. 786, 31 Stat. 354).

The writ of attachment will be dissolved, and the property discharged.

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

WICKERSHAM, District Judge.

On August 5th the defendant made its note to the plaintiff in the sum of $3,000, due in 30 days. A suit was brought on September 21st to collect the note. A writ of attachment was issued out of this court, and certain property of the defendant attached. The defendant now enters a special appearance, and moves to dissolve the attachment because the affidavit of attachment does not disclose sufficient facts upon which to sustain the writ. It appears from the affidavit that, at the time the note was made, a bill of sale was made by the defendant to the plaintiff of certain property, to secure the payment of the note. The plaintiff afterwards discovered that certain machinery supposed to belong to the defendant, and to be included in the bill of sale, was not so included and did not belong to the defendant. There is nothing in the record disclosing that the security taken by the plaintiff was rendered nugatory by any act of the defendant. He should have seen to it that the bill of sale included the property in question. [246]*246The fact that it did not include it would not sustain an attachment under section 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act June 6, 1900, c. 786, 31 Stat. 354).

The writ of attachment will be dissolved, and the property discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Alaska 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitehead-v-n-y-alaska-min-co-akd-1901.