Legal Opinion

Hurst, Purnell & Co. v. Home Protection Fire Insurance

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1886PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of Pike. Tried before tbe Hon. John P. Hubbard. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtStone, C. J.

— When an answer in a garnishment is full and complete, and leaves nothing for ascertainment by-events to transpire afterwards, then, unless the truth of the answer is controverted, or some other issue is formed upon it, tbe case is one for simple judicial determination. If the answer admits a money liability due to tbe defendant in the judgment, on which debt or ini'ebitatus assumpsit can be maintained, then a money judgment will be rendered against the garnishee. If the admitted indebtedness has not matured, or if the debt, to aid the collection of which the garnishment is sued out, has not…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Jones's Adm'r v. CrewsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
  2. Godfrey v. MacomberMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
  3. Martz v. Detroit Fire & Marine InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
  4. Gies v. Bechtner & KottmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1867
  5. Smith v. WertSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Teague, Barnett & Co. v. LeGrandSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
  2. Dowling v. Lancashire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894
  3. White v. Stephens (In Re Stephens)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · 1984
  4. Roman v. Montgomery Iron WorksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
  5. Armentrout v. Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co.District Court, S.D. Alabama · 2010

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API