Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Montana from December Term 1868, to Volume 62

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Montana from December Term 1868, to Volume 62

By (author) 

List price: US$22.40

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1922 edition. Excerpt: ...action if she is liable at all therefor was contracted prior to the issuance of the patent to said lands and by reason thereof, the said homestead lands, together with the proceeds from the sale thereof, are exempt from execution or attachment for debts or expenses contracted prior to the time patent was issued." The motion specified that it was to be "made upon the records and files in the cause, and upon such other evidence as it may be necessary to produce, including the record of patent." On November 18, 1919, this motion was submitted to the court for decision upon the following papers, to-wit, writ of attachment, alias writ of attachment together with returns thereon, copy of patent from the government of-the United States, and a deed from the defendant to one Charles Nelson. These were the only papers and the only evidence eonsidered by the lower court in passing upon the motion. Thereafter, and on April 20, 1920, the court made an order dissolving the attachment. Counsel for plaintiffs invite attention to several matters, any one of which they urge is sufficient to demonstrate the court was in error in dissolving the attachment. It is first insisted that we are not permitted to pass upon 1 the main question in the case because the motion to discharge the attachment was not made upon the ground that the writ of attachment was improperly or irregularly issued, as provided for in sections 6681, 6682 and 6683 of the Revised Codes, butithat the property levied upon was exempt from seizure under a writ of attachment or execution. With this we agree. The question is not one that properly arises upon a motion to dissolve an attachment. (State ea: rel. Malin-Yates Co. v. Justice of the Peace, 51 Mont. 133, 149 Pac. 709; more

Product details

  • Paperback | 252 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 13mm | 458g
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236779266
  • 9781236779267