Miss. Code Ann. » Miss. Code Ann. / Title 11 / Chapter 31
Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 11-31-1 (2026)

Jurisdiction; debtors

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The chancery court shall have jurisdiction of attachment suits based upon demands founded upon any indebtedness, whether the same be legal or equitable, or for the recovery of damages for the breach of any contract, express or implied, or arising ex delicto against any nonresident, absent or absconding debtor, who has lands and tenements within this state, or against any such debtor and persons in this state who have in their hands effects of, or are indebted to, such nonresident, absent or absconding debtor. The court shall give a decree in personam against such nonresident, absent or absconding debtor if summons has been personally served upon him, or if he has entered an appearance.

Codes, 1880, § 1832; 1892, § 486; 1906, § 536; Hemingway's 1917, § 293; 1930, § 173; 1942, § 2729.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1973–1997 · leading case: Penrod Drilling Co. v. Bounds, 433 So. 2d 916 (Miss. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Penrod Drilling Co. v. Bounds, 433 So. 2d 916 (Miss. 1983). · cites it 24× “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-31-1 (1972), however, was not amended.”
Administrators of the Tulane Ed. Fund v. Cooley, 462 So. 2d 696 (Miss. 1984). · cites it 8× “He has brought an attachment action in the Chancery Court of Forrest County under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-31-1 , et seq. (Supp.”
Universal Comput. Servs., Inc. v. Lyall, 464 So. 2d 69 (Miss. 1985). · cites it 13× “This second amended answer was sworn and omitted the allegation that the car rightfully belonged to the defendant, and denied that the car was in the possession of the plaintiff Lyall. II. Initially, a review of attachment in chancery would be of help as we proceed.”
Mississippi Chem. Corp. v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 444 F. Supp. 925 (S.D. Miss. 1977). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff utilized Mississippi’s Chancery Attachment statute, § 11-31-1 et seq., Mississippi Code of 1972, made applicable to this action by Rule 64, F.”
TXG Intrastate Pipeline Co. v. Grossnickle, 716 So. 2d 991 (Miss. 1997). · cites it 4× “In a new sixth claim, Plaintiff sought an Attachment in Chancery under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-31-1 , et seq. on all monies attributable to San Gabriel's interest in production from the Smith Well and leases.”
Est. of Portnoy v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 603 F. Supp. 285 (S.D. Miss. 1985). · cites it 16× “Cessna Aircraft Company removed the case to Federal Court on January 4, 1983, and now submits before the Court a motion to dismiss contending (1) due process precludes the court from exercising quasi in rem jurisdiction since the property attached has absolutely no relation to…”
Zola W. Rittenhouse v. Edward H. Mabry, Jr., 832 F.2d 1380 (5th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “Rittenhouse’s motion for reconsideration of the district court’s August 6, 1985 order included a request to file an amended complaint alleging jurisdiction under Mississippi’s attachment statutes, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-31-1 et seq. (1972 & Supp.”
Noble v. Noble, 502 So. 2d 317 (Miss. 1987). · cites it 2× “1986) (non-resident defendant liable to entry of judgment enforceable against all of his property whereever found).”
Louisville & NR Co. v. Hasty, 360 So. 2d 925 (Miss. 1978). · cites it 2× “*926 The chancellor took jurisdiction of this case pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-31-1 (1972), on the ground of the nonresidency of the appellant, a Kentucky corporation.”
Aaron Henry v. First Nat'l Bank of Clarksdale v. Mississippi Action for Progress, Inc., 595 F.2d 291 (1st Cir. 1979). “Miss.Code Ann. §§ 11-31-1 et seq. (1972).”
McDaniel v. Ritter, 556 So. 2d 303 (Miss. 1989). “1986) (that defendant has made a contract to be performed here, committed a tort here, or done business here), § 11-31-1 (Supp. 1986) (that defendant has property here), etc.”
S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Fox, 609 So. 2d 357 (Miss. 1992). · cites it 2× “The record is sprinkled with hints that Southern Pacific may have been subject to an attachment action, but no hint that Fox has in fact attached, seized or even specifically identified in this state anything belonging to Southern Pacific.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.