Scott v. White
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Carden (Wash. 1957)
- Miller v. City of Pasco (Wash. 1957)
- Thompson v. Cooper (Alaska 2012)
- GC Finance, LLC v. Old Republic National Title Insurance (6th Cir. 2011)
- Del Borrello v. Del Borrello (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 2001)
- King County Water District No. 68 v. Tax Commission (Wash. 1961)
- City of Seattle v. Green (Wash. 1958)
- Calvert v. Calvert (Nev. 1942)
- Farley v. Davis (Wash. 1941)
- Connolly v. Serunian (Me. 1941)
- Fulmer v. Goldfarb (Tenn. 1937)
- Criner v. Farve (Okla. 1915)
- Taylor v. Parker (Supreme Court of the United States 1914)
- Pinckney v. Wolf (La. 1889)
- Davis v. Third Avenue Railroad (The Superior Court of New York City 1876)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
An appeal will lie from an order to discharge an attachment, although it is merely a subsidiary proceeding.
The defect in the affidavit was amendable. The case differs from the case of Neil v. McReynolds, 8 Humph. 12, in which there was no affidavit. The/ Act of 1843, chapter 29, makes express provision for amendments. An attcahment may be issued under that act by a justice of the peace returnable to. the Circuit Court, where there is a cause already pending, just as upon an original cause.
Motion to dismiss appeal denied, and judgment reversed.
An appeal in error in a proceeding at law, lies only from a final judgment. Carroll v. Coldwell, Mar. & Yerg. 85; Butcher v. Palmer, 4 Cold. 248.
In a criminal proceeding no appeal lies except from a final judgment, Nolin v. The State, 6 Cold. 12. But no appeal or writ of error lies from a judgment in a proceeding under the writ of habeas corpus, State v. Gallaway, 5 Cold. 326. An appeal lies only from a final decree in chancery with the exceptions provided in section 3167 of the Code, taken from Act of 1863, ch. 3, sec. 17. See Elliston v. Hughes, 1 Head. 225; Gill v. Crud, 3 Cold. 295; Franklin v. Franklin, 2 Swan, 521. Befusing a motion to dismiss for want of Equity is not embraced in the foregoing exceptions. Crenshaw v. Watkins, vol. 2 of these Reports. And an appeal will not lie from a refusal of a chancellor to grant an injunction. Bruce v. Bank of West Tennessee, vol. 2 of these Reports. But a writ of error lies only upon a final decree in chancery, Code 3176. Helms v. Mynatt, 6 Cold. 215.
A judgment at law is not final, when. Joslyn v. Sappington, 1 Tenn. 222; Carroll v. Coldwell, Mar. & Yerg. 78; State v. Dillon, 3 Hay. 174.
A decree in chancery is final, when. Berryhill v. M’Kee, 3 Yerg. 157; Delap v. Hunter, 1 Sneed, 101; Gill v. Creed, 3 Cold. 295 Overton v. Bigelow, 10 Yerg. 48; Allen v. Barksdale, 1 Head 238; Haywood v. Marsh, 6 Yerg. 69.
A decree in chancery is not final, when. Read v. Robb, 4 Yerg. 66; Delap v. Hunters, 1 Sneed 101, 105; Crenshaw v. Watson, reported in vol. 2, of these Reports; Mayse v. Biggs, 3 Head 36. But contra Banks v. Walker, vol. 2 of these Reports; Gill v. Creed, 3 Cold. 295.
Decree of County Court not final, when. Evans v. Shields, 3 Head 70
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.