Mace v. Roberts
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county: Eeank M. Eish, Judge. The plaintiff, Maoe, recovered a judgment against the defendant Cottrell, for $1,410.05, in the superior court of Milwaukee county, September 28, 1894, and an execution was issued on the judgment, and, the usual affidavit having been made on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant, Soberts, was summoned as garnishee.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county: Eeank M. Eish, Judge. The plaintiff, Maoe, recovered a judgment against the defendant Cottrell, for $1,410.05, in the superior court of Milwaukee county, September 28, 1894, and an execution was issued on the judgment, and, the usual affidavit having been made on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant, Soberts, was summoned as garnishee. He filed within the time limited his general answer, as provided in sec. 2759, R. S., denying his liability. The plaintiff elected to take issue on his answer, and this issue was tried before…
1Opinion of the CourtPinhey, J.
1. The point made by the appellant, the garnishee, that the respondent was in no position to attack as fraudulent the transfer of property from Cottrell to him, is not well taken. The action brought against Cottrell, and Roberts as garnishee, was a proceeding in aid of the execution. It was a secondary or supplemental action. By sec. 2753, E. S., such an action may be commenced “ upon judgment or decree at any time after issuance in any case of an execution against property, and before the time when it is returnable,” upon an affidavit as prescribed in that section; and “ any number of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Williams v. Commercial National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1907
- Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v. HarmonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- O. L. Packard Machinery Co. v. LaevWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898