Harrill v. Humphries ( 1858 )

By the Court.

Benning J.

delivering the opinion.

The affidavit followed the form prescribed by the late attachment Act; and the Act does not require more. Acts of 1855, 1856, jt?. 35.

It was said, that, as the debt was not due, the defendant was entitled to a stay of execution until it should become due, and therefore, that the affidavit should have disclosed the fact, that the debt was not due.

But the plaintiff’s pleadings would disclose this fact; and if they would not, the defendant might bring it out in his pleadings ; and, so the fact become known, the manner of its becoming known, would be immaterial; the same effect-'' would follow, in whatever way it became known; the defendant would get his stay of execution.

We think, then, that the affidavit was sufficient. The Court below held it insufficient, and dismissed the attachment. ¥e think, therefore, that, in this, the Court erred.

Of course it is needless to notice the other question.

Judgment reversed.