Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Pete

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided June 19, 1991No. 07-CA-59422Published

1ConcurrenceSullivan, Justice

I concur in all that is decided in the majority’s opinion. I write separately because I disagree with the conclusion reached in Justice Robertson’s concurring opinion to the extent that it suggests that an entire joint bank account may be garnished by a creditor of only one of the joint depositors, despite evidence that the funds are equitably owned by the innocent depositor and the other depositor’s interest in the account is limited.

Justice Robertson cites Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Track, 233 Minn. 467, 47 N.W.2d 194 (1951), in support of his proposition that Mr. Jones, the contractor,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hayden v. GardnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964
  2. Park Enterprises, Inc. v. TrachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
  3. Delta Fertilizer, Inc. v. WeaverMississippi Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Cupit v. BrooksMississippi Supreme Court · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API