Smaltz Goodwin Co. v. Poppe, Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
The appeal is from an order dismissing a garnishee proceeding.
Plaintiff, upon the disclosure, moved for judgment against the garnishee. Defendant appeared and made a countermotion for dismissal of the proceedings and discharge of the garnishee on several grounds, only one of which was held good, viz. that the debt disclosed by the garnishee “was not due absolutely at the date of thé service of the garnishee summons, but was then dependent upon certain contingencies.”
Plaintiff asserts that the disclosure reveals no interest of defendant in the subject matter of the garnishment, since it, with…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- West Florida Grocery Co. v. Teutonia Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Florida · 1917
- Godfrey v. MacomberMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Martz v. Detroit Fire & Marine InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
- Dowling v. Lancashire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894
- Nickerson v. NickersonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1888
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rintala v. ShoemakerDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1973
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. WalkerOregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Holman v. General Ins. Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975