TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Atlantic Bank v. Frankford

The Atlantic Bank of New York v. Simeon Frankford.

Atl. Bank v. Frankford, 61 N.C. 199 (1867)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 5, 1867
Judges
Reade
Citations
61 N.C. 199
Headnotes
An affidavit amended by order of the court must be re-sworn to afteiamendment, or it will be considered as no affidavit.
Summary
Original Attachment, before Buxton, J., at Fall Term, 1866, of Rowan Superior Court, upon a motion to quash. The view taken bj the court renders it necessary to state only that the plaintiff was a corporation, chartered in New York, and had sued out an attachment agaidst the effects of the defendant, making affidavit that the latter “is a nonresident of the State, or so absconds or conceals himself,” &c. This attachment was returned to Spring Term, 1866, of Rowan Superior Court, and at Fall Term, 1866, upon motion by the plaintiff, the words, “ is a non-resident of this State,” above, were stricken out. Before the amendment was allowed, the defendant had moved to quash the attachment, and afteiq such allowance, this motion was overruled. Thereupon the defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Reade

Reade, J.

The plaintiff’s counsel moved to amend the affidavit by striking from it certain words, and the court allowed the motion.

It does not appear that it was sworn to again after it was thus amended. It was then no affidavit at all, and the plaintiff could not be convicted of perjury, if, as amended, it be false. The case stands then as if there were no affi *200 davit. An original attachment, without an affidavit to support it, is irregular, and may be quashed on motion.

There is error in the refusal to quash.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1892: 21893: 11924: 118922026peak 1892 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sheldon v. Kivett14 S.E. 970 (N.C. 1892)
  2. State v. Norman14 S.E. 968 (N.C. 1892)
  3. People v. Shockley142 N.E. 481 (Ill. 1924)
  4. Brown v. Rhinehart Bros.16 S.E. 840 (N.C. 1893)

Most recent

  1. People v. Shockley142 N.E. 481 (Ill. 1924)
  2. Brown v. Rhinehart Bros.16 S.E. 840 (N.C. 1893)
  3. Sheldon v. Kivett14 S.E. 970 (N.C. 1892)
  4. State v. Norman14 S.E. 968 (N.C. 1892)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list