Dow v. Irwin
New Mexico Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Chaves County; J. T. Mte-Clure, Judge. Action by Hiram M. Dow against W. J. Irwin and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Irwin appeals. Neither equitable garnishment nor suit by way of a creditor’s bill is proper to reach funds in hands of municipal corporation. Art. 8, sec. 126, Ann. Const.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Chaves County; J. T. Mte-Clure, Judge. Action by Hiram M. Dow against W. J. Irwin and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Irwin appeals. Neither equitable garnishment nor suit by way of a creditor’s bill is proper to reach funds in hands of municipal corporation. Art. 8, sec. 126, Ann. Const. N. M.; sec. 26, c. 63, L. 1909; City of Newark v. Eunk, R. I. Rev. Stats. 125, sec. 1; Wilson v. Lewis, 10 R. I. 285; sec. 657, c. 1, C. L. Í897; Yan Cott v. Pratt et ah, 39 Pac. 827; 4 Ene. L. 812; Hawthorne v. St. Louis, 11 Mo. 59; Pengleton v. Perkins, 49 Mo.…
1DissentHanna, J.
(dissenting.) — Eight assignments of error, raising two questions, are presented-for our consideration by appellant’s brief. The questions are: First, can the funds in the hands of the county road board due W. J. Irwin as a balance upon his completed contract be reached by creditor’s bill in the face of our statute which provides that “No public officer shall be summoned as a garnishee in his official capacity;” and, second, can this statutory provision, if otherwise available to the road board to- avoid any liability under such creditor’s bill, bo waived by it so as to enable the plaintiff…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pendleton v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Riggin v. HillardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
- Plummer v. School District Number 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- City of Laredo v. NalleTexas Supreme Court · 1886
- Geist v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.