Legal Opinion

Gray v. Houck

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 1934PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Swiggart

This is an action for damages for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident. The defendant, Houck, left the state before service could be had upon him, and jurisdiction is asserted in this action, begun several years later, by petition for attachment by garnishment of the Travelers ’ Insurance Company, as the debtor of the defendant.

Such process is authorized by statute in behalf of a tort claimed against one who is “indebted” to the defendant. Code, sections 9397, 9428.

The circuit court concluded, from the averment's of the petition and affidavit for attachment, that the insurance…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Parker, Peebles & Knox v. El SaiehSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
  2. Finch v. Great American InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
  3. Downer v. TopliffSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
  4. Crudgington v. HoganTennessee Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Lockett v. BeaverTennessee Supreme Court · 1896

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. MacEy v. CrumSupreme Court of Alabama · 1947
  2. McLeod v. St. Thomas HospitalTennessee Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Housley v. Anaconda CompanyUtah Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Baptist Memorial Hospital v. CouillensTennessee Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Associated Indemnity Corp. of San Francisco v. McAlexanderTennessee Supreme Court · 1935

14 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