Legal Opinion

Buschman v. Forster Clark & Co.

Baltimore City Superior Court

Decided December 26, 1888Published

1Opinion of the CourtHarlan, C. J.

The motion to quash the attachment in this case was made by the permanent trustees in insolvency of the defendants, George H. Forster and John E. Clark, said trustees having been appointed in an involuntary insolvency proceeding begun subsequent to the issuing of the attachment; and it is objected on behalf of the plaintiff that they have no such interest in the property attached as to enable them to intervene with this motion; and this is manifestly the first question to be determined.

“The motion to quash may be made either by the defendant himself, or by the garnishee, or by any third party…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ferrall v. FarnenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1887
  2. Gable v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
  3. Strauss v. RoseCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1883
  4. Maughlin v. TylerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1878
  5. Clarke v. MeixsellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1868

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API