Bingham v. Rushing
Supreme Court of Alabama
ERROR to the Circuit Coui’t of Tuskaloosa. This- proceeding was commenced in the court below by the pla'.nt.ff in error, by procees of garnishment against the defendant in error. The plaintiff, at the March term, 1840, of the circuit court of Tuskaloosa, recovered a judgment against the Wetump-ka and Coosa Rail Road Company, for $1385 06, and on the 31st August, 1840, he made affidavit and obtained process of garnishment against the defendent as a stockholder of the Company.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Circuit Coui’t of Tuskaloosa. This- proceeding was commenced in the court below by the pla'.nt.ff in error, by procees of garnishment against the defendant in error. The plaintiff, at the March term, 1840, of the circuit court of Tuskaloosa, recovered a judgment against the Wetump-ka and Coosa Rail Road Company, for $1385 06, and on the 31st August, 1840, he made affidavit and obtained process of garnishment against the defendent as a stockholder of the Company. The defendant appeared and answered, denying that he was indebted to the Company, but admitted that he was a member;…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
Several questions are presented on the record and have been made in the argument of counsel, which from the view we take of this case, it is not necessary to consider. We shall coniine ourselves to the examination of two; whether this garnishment can be sustained under the act of 1841, and whether any judgment can be rendered upon the answer of the garnishee uider the law as it existed previous to the passage of that act.
*405The act of the 31st December, 1841, was passed to secure more speedily the collection of debts against corporations. The first section authorizes a garnishment to issue…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Paschall v. WhitsettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
- Cooper v. FrederickSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- First National Bank v. DimmickSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
- McKelvey v. CrockettNevada Supreme Court · 1884