80 F. 990 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada | 1897
(orally). I think the form of the heading of the affidavit is subject to criticism. The form as to the affidavit of the complaint is certainly much better. But the point that is raised is purely technical in its character, and it goes simply to the form, and not the substance, of the affidavit. The true interpretation to be given to that affidavit is that it is the affidavit of M. A. Murphy, who is the attorney for the corporation. It is not susceptible, in my judgment, of any other judicial interpretation. The law is well settled that an agent or an attorney may make the affidavit. Grocery Co. v. Smith, 61 Mo. App. 665, 669; Drake, Attachm. §§ 93-93b, and authorities there cited; 3 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 207, and authorities there cited. The motion to dissolve the attachment is overruled.