Meritz v. Marks
B. O. Meritz v. H. Marks
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Wyly, J.
The defendants were sued as commercial partners for $5913, and from'the judgment condemning them to pay plaintiffs that sunt they have appealed. The defendant, H. Scott, was anon-resident and was not cited. The rule which he took to set aside the attachment on the supplemental petition was not an appearance subjecting him to the jurisdiction of the court on the merits. 5 N. S. 427; 10 An. 334.
He was not represented by an attorney ad hoc appointed by the court, and the judgment maintaining the attachment of his property was erroneous. The reconventional demand of the defendant Marks was not passed upon in the judgment, which was an irregularity. 17 An 153. Justice requires the case to be remanded.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment herein be annulled, and that this case be remanded for new trial and to be proceeded with according to law, appellees paying costs of appeal.
Rehearing refused.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.