Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 31.030 (2026)

Written undertaking on attachment; additional bond; exception to sufficiency of sureties; vacation of writ

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 31.030 Written undertaking on attachment; additional bond; exception to sufficiency of sureties; vacation of writ.

1. The court, in its order for attachment, shall require a written undertaking on the part of the plaintiff payable in lawful money of the United States in a sum not less than the amount claimed by the plaintiff or the value of the property to be attached, whichever is less, with two or more sureties to the effect that if the plaintiff dismiss such action or if the defendant recover judgment the plaintiff will pay in lawful money of the United States all costs that may be awarded to the defendant, and all damages which the defendant may sustain by reason of the attachment including attorney’s fees, not exceeding the sum specified in the undertaking. Each of the sureties shall annex to the undertaking an affidavit that the surety is a resident and householder or freeholder within the State, and worth double the sum specified in the undertaking over and above all the surety’s debts and liabilities, exclusive of property exempt from execution. In the case of an attachment issued with notice to the defendant, or in any case upon showing by the defendant after notice to the plaintiff, the court may require an additional bond. No bond may be required of the State or of an officer or agency thereof.

2. Before issuing the writ of attachment the clerk shall require the filing by the plaintiff of the written undertaking required by the court pursuant to subsection 1.

3. At any time after the issuing of the attachment, but not later than 5 days after actual notice of the levy thereof, the defendant may except to the sufficiency of the sureties. If the defendant fails to do so, the defendant is deemed to have waived all objections to them. When excepted to, the plaintiff’s sureties, within 5 days from service of written notice of exception, upon notice to the defendant of not less than 2 nor more than 5 days, must justify before the judge, justice, or clerk of the court in which the action is pending; and upon failure to justify, or if others in their place fail to justify, at the time and place appointed, the writ of attachment must be vacated.

[1911 CPA § 207; A 1949, 499; 1943 NCL § 8705]—(NRS A 1957, 271; 1965, 1003; 1973, 1174)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1958–1972 · leading case: Nevada Credit Rating Bureau, Inc. v. Williams, 503 P.2d 9 (Nev. 1972).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nevada Credit Rating Bureau, Inc. v. Williams, 503 P.2d 9 (Nev. 1972). “” See also: NRS 31.030, McIntosh v. Knox, supra. The appellants also contend that the respondent failed to take advantage of NRS 31.”

Cooper v. Liebert, 402 P.2d 989 (Nev. 1965). “040), or to vacate an attachment (NRS 31.030 (2)), or to discharge an attachment (NRS 31.”

Great Am. Indem. Co. v. Sweetwater Mining Co., 326 P.2d 1105 (Nev. 1958). “That undertaking, pursuant to NRS 31.030 was to the effect that should defendant prevail in the action the surety would “pay all costs that may be awarded to the said *221 defendant and all damages which it may sustain by reason of attachment, including attorneys’ fees.”

Aronoff v. Katleman, 345 P.2d 221 (Nev. 1959). ““The plaintiff at the time of issuing the summons, or at any time afterwards, may have the property of the defendant attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may he recovered, unless the defendant gives security to pay such judgment, as hereinafter provided…”

Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek, 461 P.2d 864 (Nev. 1969). · cites it 3× “, was written pursuant to NRS 31.030(1) and is expressly conditioned upon a dismissal of that action by Vitek, the plaintiff, or a recovery of a judgment by Clarence E.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 31.030(1) — 1 case

Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek, 461 P.2d 864 (Nev. 1969). “, was written pursuant to NRS 31.030(1) and is expressly conditioned upon a dismissal of that action by Vitek, the plaintiff, or a recovery of a judgment by Clarence E.”

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.