Leighton v. Heagerty
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Davis & O’Brien having been summoned as garnishees of the defendant Heagerty, it appeared by their disclosure, on November 12, 1873, that in December, 1872, they were retained by him as attorneys to prosecute a claim against the quartermaster’s department of the United States army.
Read the full summary
Davis & O’Brien having been summoned as garnishees of the defendant Heagerty, it appeared by their disclosure, on November 12, 1873, that in December, 1872, they were retained by him as attorneys to prosecute a claim against the quartermaster’s department of the United States army. On June 23, 1872, they received from that department a check for a portion of the claim, $218.35, and, for the balance, $444.12, a voucher in the following form: “Form No. 13, Voucher to Abstract B. “ The United States to John Heagerty, Dr. Place and Date. Dolls. Cts. Fort Buford, D. T. Nov. 1,1872 For services…
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
We agree with the learned judge, from whose determination this appeal is taken, that “it is quite apparent from the testimony in this case, that, if Brooks and his assignees, Guerin and Ferron, have any interest, under the order given by Heagerty to Brooks, in the voucher which the plaintiff seeks to reach by this proceeding, it is only to the extent of $96.98 ; and that such was the condition of things at the time this garnishee summons was served. The plaintiff, then, has the right to have the balance of the voucher applied in payment of his judgment.”
The testimony which was received for…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Pitzl v. WinterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Stub v. HeinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Bernardini de la Huerta v. PeñaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1934
- Singer v. EidelblisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Sprinkler Warehouse, Inc. v. Systematic Rain, Inc., d/b/a GPLAWN.comSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.