Case Digest (G.R. No. 2235)
Facts:
- Thomas Pepperell filed an action on a promissory note against B.F. Taylor.
- The promissory note is for the amount of $1,150, with an interest rate of 25% per annum from September 14, 1903.
- The action was initiated on April 21, 1904, and Pepperell obtained an attachment of Taylor's property on April 25, 1904, under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The affidavit for attachment stated that Taylor had disposed of or was about to dispose of his property with the intent to defraud his creditors.
- The attachment was levied on Taylor's launch, Scotia.
- Taylor moved to dissolve the attachment, but the motion was denied.
- The case proceeded to trial, and the court entered judgment in favor of Pepperell for the face value of the note plus interest.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The affidavit for attachment, which stated two alternative grounds, is not defective.
- Section 426 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to a case where the attachment is levied on the property on which the security exists.
- Section 510 of the Code of Civil Proc...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- An affidavit for attachment stating two alternative grounds is not defective because it still states the existence of a ground for attachment.
- Section 4...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 2235)
Facts:
The case of Pepperell v. Taylor involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Thomas Pepperell, and the defendant, B.F. Taylor. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to recover the sum of $1,150 with interest from the defendant, based on a promissory note. In order to secure the payment, the plaintiff obtained an attachment of the defendant's property under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The affidavit for attachment stated that the defendant had disposed of his property or was about to dispose of it with the intent to defraud his creditors. The defendant moved to dissolve the attachment, but the motion was denied. The case then proceeded to trial, and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff.
Issue:
The main issues raised in the case are as follows:
- Is the affidavit for attachment sufficient?
- Is the attachment valid when there is other sufficient security?
- Does section 510 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to the judgment?
Ruling:
The court ruled on the issues as follows:
- The affidavit for attachment is sufficient.
- The attachment is valid despite the existence of other security.
- Section 510 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the judgment.
Ratio:
Regarding the sufficiency of the affidavit for attachment, the defe...