Witherspoon v. Barber
Supreme Court of Alabama
Barber obtained three judgments against Gamble, before a justice of the peace of Greene county, two of #40 S4 each, and one of #21 93, amounting in all, to #103 61. Witherspoon appeared and answered as a garnishee at the suit of Barber, though there was no summons nor affidavit, and admitted he, as cashier of Concord Academy, had a sufficiency of subscriptions in favor of Gamble, some of which were then due, to satisfy the debts due to Barber; whereupon, the justice gave…
Read the full summary
Barber obtained three judgments against Gamble, before a justice of the peace of Greene county, two of #40 S4 each, and one of #21 93, amounting in all, to #103 61. Witherspoon appeared and answered as a garnishee at the suit of Barber, though there was no summons nor affidavit, and admitted he, as cashier of Concord Academy, had a sufficiency of subscriptions in favor of Gamble, some of which were then due, to satisfy the debts due to Barber; whereupon, the justice gave judgment against him for #30 then due, and for #136 9S to become due thereafter. Both these sums were embraced in the one…
1Opinion of the Court
By JUDGE WHITE.
A proceeding by garnishment is a suit, and in this as in other suits, the limits prescribed by the constitution and laws, of the jurisdiction of justices of the peace must be observed. In the present case, the justice rendered a judgment against the plaintiff in error, *338a sum far exceeding his jurisdiction; this he had ns authority to do. Nor can so fatal an error be cured by the fact that this judgment was founded on, or grew out of three others, each of which separately, was within his ju-risdietion. For in the first place. I know of no principle that would justify the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Moore v. StaintonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853