Barnett v. Ring
Barnett v. Ring
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The Circuit Court of Warren County had jurisdiction of the attachment which was sued out and levied on property in that county, although the defendant had his residence in Sunflower County. Section 522 of the Code requires ordinary suits to be “ commenced in the Circuit Court of that county in which the defendants, or any one of them, may be found,” but section 1429 clearly contemplates the return of the writ of attachment to the proper court of the county in which the writ was issued and levied, and section 1432 requires duplicate writs of attachment issued to any other county to be returnable to the court to which the original is returnable.
The defendant below did not apply for a change of venue
No harm was done to the plaintiff in error by the consolidation of the two attachments, and it cannot be pronounced, erroneous at his instance.
The return of the attachment writs by the constable did. not authorize the Circuit Court to render judgment, but the issuance of the alias writ of attachment was authorized by section 1432 of the Code, and its execution and return by the sheriff did give the court jurisdiction.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- A. Barnett v. George F. Ring
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Attachment. Jurisdiction. Defendant’s residence. When a writ of attachment, returnable to the Circuit Court of a certain county, is levied upon property of the defendant in that county, and duly returned, the court has jurisdiction of the case, although the defendant may reside in a different county. 2. Same. Practice. Consolidation of suits. There were two attachment suits in which the parties were the same, and the writs returnable to the same term of the same court, and, upon motion of the plaintiff in attachment, defendant in error here, the court ordered the cases to be consolidated. Held, that the action of the court cannot be pronounced erro-, neous, at the instance of the plaintiff in error, the defendant in attachment, as no harm was done him. 3. Same. Return by constable to circuit court. Alias writ. Jurisdiction. Section 1437 of Revised Code of 1871 provides that, “ if an attachment writ, returnable to the Circuit Court, be executed by a constable, coroner, or marshal of a city, or by a person specially appointed for that purpose, the writ, with the return thereon, and all property and effects levied on, shall forthwith be handed to the sheriff of the proper county, who shall be responsible for the property so seized,” etc. Under this statute, if a constable serve the writ and return it to the Circuit Court, it will give the court no jurisdiction; but if he sell the property whilst in his hands, the court can acquire jurisdiction, and also secure the avails of the property in the constable’s hands, by an alias writ directed to the sheriff, and served on the constable as garnishee. .