Norton v. Winter
Oregon Supreme Court
On the 8th day of May, 1852, Norton recovered a judgment against Winter and Lattimer, for the sum of $4,496 86. Execution issued January IT, 1853, containing an attachment clause, which was served on D. H. Lownsdale, as garnishee, who appeared • at the return of such execution, and answered as follows: “ I stand indebted to the above defendants, on a judgment entered against me on the 29th of October, 1851, on the records of the District Court of this county, for the amount…
Read the full summary
On the 8th day of May, 1852, Norton recovered a judgment against Winter and Lattimer, for the sum of $4,496 86. Execution issued January IT, 1853, containing an attachment clause, which was served on D. H. Lownsdale, as garnishee, who appeared • at the return of such execution, and answered as follows: “ I stand indebted to the above defendants, on a judgment entered against me on the 29th of October, 1851, on the records of the District Court of this county, for the amount of $1,400 and costs of suit.”
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, C. J.
Is Norton entitled to a judgment against Lownsdale upon this answer? Section 42 of the practice act provides, that in certain cases, a garnishee process may be served upon a person who has “property, rights and credits” in his hands belonging to defendant in execution.
Section 43 provides that, if such garnishee shall be found indebted to said defendant, &c., judgment shall be rendered against him, &c., and “ such judgment shall bind all such property, effects, rights and credits in the hands of such garnishee, and the payment of the amount of the judgment by such garnishee shall operate as a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Prescott v. ParkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Howell v. FreemanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cooke v. MyersMontana Supreme Court · 1930
- Despain v. CrowOregon Supreme Court · 1887
- Hamill v. PeckColorado Court of Appeals · 1898
- Hamill v. PeckColorado Court of Appeals · 1898