Eddy v. Heath's Garnishees
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Cov/rt of Common Pleas. The facts are fully presented in the opinion of the court. I. It being admitted on the record that the garnishees had no personal property of the defendant in their hands, the question presented is whether the garnishees were liable as debtors of the defendant. The attachment law contemplates the garnishment of only two classes of persons: 1st, those holding property of the defendant, and, 2d, those indebted.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Cov/rt of Common Pleas. The facts are fully presented in the opinion of the court. I. It being admitted on the record that the garnishees had no personal property of the defendant in their hands, the question presented is whether the garnishees were liable as debtors of the defendant. The attachment law contemplates the garnishment of only two classes of persons: 1st, those holding property of the defendant, and, 2d, those indebted. (R. C. 1855, p.-, § 21, subdivision 5 ; id. § 65, 72, 76, 77.) The only ground on which it is sought to charge the garnishees as debtors of…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
In the statement we will endeavor to simplify this rather intricate transaction, omitting nothing material to the determination of the point on which the cause turns. Twitchell *144was United States marshal for the district of Missouri, with Simonds and McAllister, the garnishees in this cause, as his securities on his official bond, and there was placed in his hands for collection an execution in favor of Heath, the defendant in this cause, against one Sands. The property of Sands was levied upon by the marshal to satisfy this execution. Another person claimed the property, the right to which…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lundie v. BradfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
3Cited by2 opinions
- German v. Universal Oil Products Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1934
- State v. JoeckelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869