West Virginia § 38-7-5 Attachment for claim not due

West Virginia Statutes

§ 38-7-5 — Attachment for claim not due

West Virginia § 38-7-5

Ch. 38LIENS

Art. 7ATTACHMENT

This text of West Virginia § 38-7-5 (Attachment for claim not due) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

W. Va. Code § 38-7-5 (2026).

Text

An attachment may be sued out in a court of equity for a debt or claim, legal or equitable, whether the same be due or not, upon any of the grounds mentioned in section two of this article, but the affidavit, in case the claim or debt be not due, must show when it will become due: Provided, however, That an attachment shall not be sued out against a foreign corporation for a debt not due, upon the ground alone that it is a foreign corporation, nor against a nonresident defendant for a debt not due, upon the ground alone that he is a nonresident, unless the affiant shows by his affidavit that such defendant was a resident of this state when the debt was contracted, and that the plaintiff believed he would remain a resident of this state at the time he gave the defendant credit.

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

An attachment may be sued out in a court of equity for a debt or claim, legal or equitable, whether the same be due or not, upon any of the grounds mentioned in section two of this article, but the affidavit, in case the claim or debt be not due, must show when it will become due: Provided, however, That an attachment shall not be sued out against a foreign corporation for a debt not due, upon the ground alone that it is a foreign corporation, nor against a nonresident defendant for a debt not due, upon the ground alone that he is a nonresident, unless the affiant shows by his affidavit that such defendant was a resident of this state when the debt was contracted, and that the plaintiff believed he would remain a resident of this state at the time he gave the defendant credit.