Baldwin v. Roman
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appear from the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. J. 0. Richardson. S. Roman recovered a judgment against' the Montgomery Iron Works. Upon this judgment a writ of garnishment was issued and served upon the appellant, A. M. Baldwin. The garnishee made a written answer, in which he denied all indebtedness to the defendant. After filing his answer, the plaintiff moved that the garnishee be required to answer orally.
Read the full summary
Appear from the Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. J. 0. Richardson. S. Roman recovered a judgment against' the Montgomery Iron Works. Upon this judgment a writ of garnishment was issued and served upon the appellant, A. M. Baldwin. The garnishee made a written answer, in which he denied all indebtedness to the defendant. After filing his answer, the plaintiff moved that the garnishee be required to answer orally. Upon the hearing of this motion the garnishee showed that at a prior term of the court he liad filed his answer in writing, that no contest or other proceeding as to…
1Opinion of the CourtMoCLLELAN, C. J.
There was no final judgment against Baldwin, the garnishee, in the court below, and his appeal must be dismissed for want of such judgment to support it, in response to the motion to that end, made in behalf of the appellee.
The rulings of the circuit court in the garnishment proceedings, if they ever result in injury to the garnishee, may be reviewed on appeal; a remedy that will be entirely adequate to correct any errors that may have been committed to his hurt; and upon this ground the application for mavdamns must be denied.
Appeal dismissed and application for mandamus denied.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Chamberlain v. Mobile Fish & Oyster Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1902