Epstein v. Salorgne
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The objection to the sufficiency of the service of the garnishment is not well taken.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The objection to the sufficiency of the service of the garnishment is not well taken. If there was originally ground for such objection, it was waived by the appearance, answer, and proceedings of respondent. — Whitney v. Lehmer, 26 Ind. 503 : National Bank v. Titsworth, 73 111. 591; Hatstat v. Blakeslee, 41 Conn. 301; Mercer v. Boody, 6 Ela. 723; Joseph v. Pyle, 2 W. Ya. 449; Pulliam v. Aler, 15 Gratt. 54; Southern BanTc, etc., v. McDonald, 46 Mo. 31; Railroad Oo. v. Rider, 45 Md. 24. The ruling in Howell v. Porter, 62 Mo. 309, is inapplicable, because it…
1Opinion of the CourtHayden, J.
This was a garnishment proceeding before a justice of the peace. The plaintiff obtained a judgment before the justice against one Hockmuth, and upon the execution the constable returned that he had summoned Salorgne as garnishee ; but the return showed no service of garnishment as required by law to hold the property or credit in the garnishee’s hands. Wag. Stats., p. 664, sect. 2; p. 186, sect. 4. Interrogatories were filed and Salorgne appeared and answered, denying any indebtedness ; and upon issues made up there was a trial both before the justice and upon appeal in the court below. The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hebel v. Amazon InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
- Keane v. Bartholow, Lewis & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1877
3Cited by15 opinions
- Gates v. TustenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Fletcher v. WearSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- State Ex Rel. Shaw State Bank v. PfeffleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1927
- Kurre v. American Indemnity Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1929
- Brecht v. CorbyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.