20 Miss. 723 | Miss. | 1849
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an appeal from a judgment, quashing a writ of attachment in the circuit- court of De Soto, at the return term thereof.
The objection to the attachment itself was, that it was dated on the 22d March, 1847, and was made returnable the sixth Monday after the fourth Monday in March next, more than twelve months, as it is said, after the date.
This phraseology is awkward, and is taken from the language regulating the term of the court. It throws the day of appearance, necessarily, into the month of May. If, instead of this circumlocution, a fixed day in May had been prescribed for the appearance, there would have been no room for the motion. The effect is precisely the same. If the sentence were transposed so as to read, the sixth Monday after the next fourth Monday in March, there would then be .no objection to the process, unless it issued not only after the first, but after the fourth Monday in March. But what is conclusive upon this head is, 'that the party understood the process to be returnable to the May term, 1847, because he then appeared and moved to quash. This cured all defect in the writ, in this respect. Harrison v. Agricultural Bank, 2 S. & M. 307.
From the disposition manifested by the legislature to extend the remedy by attachment, and in accordance with their express direction to that effect, we feel bound to place a liberal construction upon the law, in order to secure the end they had in view. See Runyan v. Morgan, 7 Humph. 218. The judgment will be reversed, and cause remanded.
The same order will be made in No. 2416, a case between the same parties.