82 N.J.L. 303 | N.J. | 1912
The opinion of the court, was delivered by
The plaintiff obtained an order from a Supreme Court commissioner that a writ of attachment issue out of the Hudson County Circuit Court against the defendant, based upon damages caused to his automobile by the alleged negligence of the defendant. The writ being issued and the property of the defendant attached, he caused a bond with surety to be filed, which, being approved by the court, an order was made releasing the attached property from the lien of the writ. Whereupon the defendant moved the Circuit Court to quash the writ and discharge the bond given for the release of the property. The Circuit Court having denied the application, a rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue to review the order of the Circuit Court was allowed, which we are now moved to make absolute. The proceedings were instituted under section 84. of the Practice act which authorizes the commencement of an action by attachment, in all cases where a summons might issue, upon proof of the existence of conditions prescribed by the act.
We have given careful consideration to the contention of the' plaintiff in the Circuit Court action that certiorari is not the proper method by which to review the order of the Circuit Court for the reason that the writ of attachment under section 84 of the Practice act is a form of process to compel appearance in a common law action (Watson v. Noblett, supra), and hence the order of the Circuit Court with respect thereto is reviewable by writ of error only. Taylor Provision Co. v. Adams Express Co., 43 Vroom 220. We are of opinion, however, that the statutory proceeding in question goes beyond mere process and possesses incidents that did not inhere in the
The second objection urged in opposition to the rule is that the defendant having entered a general appearance by moving to quash the writ, he cannot now deny the sufficiency of the order upon which it is based, for tlie primary object of the writ is the bringing in of the defendant, and that has been accomplished.
It is not necessary to decide on this application whether the defendant by giving the bond and moving to dismiss the writ can be said to have appearéd generally, because the motion denied included the discharge of the bond given to secure the levy under the attachment, which was in effect a motion to quash the levy, and defendant may, even after plea, move to quasli the levy, though the writ stand as a summons. Cord v. Newlin, 42 Vroom 438; Sullivan v. Moffat, 39 Id. 211. The fact that the plaintiff did not file the bond, which the statute requires, before lie took out his writ, raises a very serious question whether it was ever properly issued or can have any greater force than a summons, which would not support the levy, and there are other irregularities in the proceedings sufficiently debatable to justify the allowance of the writ.
The rule is made absolute.