25-1050. Attachment; claims not due; procedure; affidavit required.
The attachment authorized by section 25-1049 may be granted by the court in which the action is brought, or by a judge thereof, or by the county judge of the county; but before such action shall be brought or such attachment shall be granted, an affidavit or affidavits shall be presented to the judge; such affidavits shall be based upon personal knowledge and shall state specific facts demonstrating (1) that plaintiff will possess a valid cause of action against the defendant when the claim becomes due, (2) the date when the claim shall be due, (3) the amount of the claim, (4) a description of the existence and approximate value of any of defendant's property known to the plaintiff to be within the jurisdiction of the court and not exempt from attachment, and (5) the existence of any one of the grounds for attachment enumerated in section 25-1049.
Source
Annotations
Neither county judge nor Supreme Judges can allow attachment in district court action when district judge is present in county. Ferson v. Armour & Co., 103 Neb. 809, 174 N.W. 425 (1919).
Subsequent attaching creditors may intervene and contest attachment made without order. Deere, Wells & Co. v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 49 Neb. 385, 68 N.W. 504 (1896).
Affidavit, not petition, must show grounds for attachment. Cox & Cornell v. Peoria Mfg. Co., 42 Neb. 660, 60 N.W. 933 (1894).
Order allowing attachment is judicial act, and void if made on holiday. Merchants Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Jaffray, 36 Neb. 218, 54 N.W. 258 (1893).
Order authorizing attachment is not void though seal of court is omitted; it is amendable. Winchell v. McKinzie, 35 Neb. 813, 53 N.W. 975 (1892).
An attachment on debt before due can only be had in exceptional cases, and jurisdictional steps must be taken. Gamble v. Wilson, 33 Neb. 270, 50 N.W. 3 (1891).
It is unnecessary for affiant to state he is plaintiff, agent, or attorney. Reed, Jones & Co. v. Bagley, 24 Neb. 332, 38 N.W. 827 (1888).
Affidavit should state facts and not be merely in language of statute. Seidentopf v. Annabil, 6 Neb. 524 (1877).