Burnham, Hanna, Munger & Co. v. Dickson
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from the District Court of Kay County. statement oe eaots. On the twenty-sixth day of July, 1894, the plaintiffs in error obtained a writ of attachment against the property of the defendant, Dickson, in the district court of Kay county. The attachment was issued at 4:30 o’clock in the afternoon, and was levied upon a stock of hardware in the town of Kildare at 5:16 o’clock of the same day by Crouse, a deputy sheriff.
Read the full summary
Error from the District Court of Kay County. statement oe eaots. On the twenty-sixth day of July, 1894, the plaintiffs in error obtained a writ of attachment against the property of the defendant, Dickson, in the district court of Kay county. The attachment was issued at 4:30 o’clock in the afternoon, and was levied upon a stock of hardware in the town of Kildare at 5:16 o’clock of the same day by Crouse, a deputy sheriff. On the same day the interpleaders had executions issued out of the probate court of Kay county upon judgments rendered therein against the defendant, Dickson. These…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
McAtee, J.:
The only question for solution is one of priority. Are the interpleaders, the Consolidated Steel and Wire company and the Wichita Plumb and Pump company, whose executions were issued upon judgments in the probate court and senior in the sense that they came into the hands of the under sheriff, Harwood, prior to the time that the attachment issued out of the district court was placed in the hands of the deputy sheriff, Crouse, entitled to the proceeds?
It is provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, § 4074, p. 793, of the Statutes of Oklahoma,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Freeman v. HoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1861
- Johnson v. GorhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
- Tabb v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1815
3Cited by1 opinion
- Consolidated Steel & Wire Co. v. Burnham, Hanna, Munger & Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1899