McDonald & Co. v. Moore
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Adams District Court. The plaintiffs are creditors of the defendant, Alphonso Moore. As such they brought this action against him, and in their petition they prayed for a writ of attachment. Some proceeding appears to have been had, under which they claimed to have garnished R. A. Moore.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Adams District Court. The plaintiffs are creditors of the defendant, Alphonso Moore. As such they brought this action against him, and in their petition they prayed for a writ of attachment. Some proceeding appears to have been had, under which they claimed to have garnished R. A. Moore. The latter appeared, and denied all indebtedness to A. Moore, and denied that he held property belonging to him. lie admitted that he took possession of a certain stock of goods belonging to A. Moore, but averred that A. Moore was indebted to him, and executed a chattel mortgage upon the property…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
I. The plaintiffs, in taking issue upon the answer of the garnishee, averred, among other things, “ that on the twenty-eighth day of January, 1882, the plaintiffs sued out a writ of attachment against the goods and chattels and other property of said A. Moore, which said writ was placed in the hands of the sheriff of Adams county, and that by virtue *173of said writ the sheriff did, on the twenty-eighth day of elanuary, 1882, * * * garnish the said R. A. Moore.” The garnishee took issue upon this pleading by denying the same. On the trial it does not appear that any-writ of attachment was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rock & Son v. SingmasterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
3Cited by9 opinions
- Bristol v. BrentUtah Supreme Court · 1909
- State v. RohnSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- Sears v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
- Wile v. CohnU.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa · 1894
- Gilmore & Ruhl v. CohnSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.