Goodwin v. Brooks
Supreme Court of Alabama
Wkit of error to the Circuit Court of Russell. The plaintiff in error caused an attachment to be issued against Wm. D. Lucas and Hiram Brooks, as non-resident debtors; and John C. Baldwin, who was summoned as a garnishee, answered, that in the spring of 1840, he purchased of Brooks a tract of land for $2213 — gave him his three promissory notes: one, for $613, payable on the 25th December, 1840; another, for <$800, payable on the 25th December, 1841; the third, for $800,…
Read the full summary
Wkit of error to the Circuit Court of Russell. The plaintiff in error caused an attachment to be issued against Wm. D. Lucas and Hiram Brooks, as non-resident debtors; and John C. Baldwin, who was summoned as a garnishee, answered, that in the spring of 1840, he purchased of Brooks a tract of land for $2213 — gave him his three promissory notes: one, for $613, payable on the 25th December, 1840; another, for <$800, payable on the 25th December, 1841; the third, for $800, payable on the 25th December, 1842. Some time in the summer of 1842, Ter-rill Brooks, the brother of H. Brooks, called on…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
The act of 5th Februrary, 1840, requires a summons to issue to the assignee or transferee of a debt, when the garnishee discloses, by his answer, that he has received notice that the debt in his hands has been assigned or transferred_ [Clay’s Dig. 63.J The design of this law was to enable the plaintiff in attachment to contest the validity of the alleged transfer or assignment. The statute does not point out the mode in which this contest shall be made; but' as it does not contemplate that the assignee shall answer the process of garnishment, effect can only be given to the statute by…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Rowland & Co. v. PlummerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1874
- Travis v. TarttSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Grates v. CooperSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Kimbrough v. DavisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859