Semmes v. Patterson, Henry & Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison County. Hon. T. J. Wharton, Judge. In 1886, Patterson, Henry & Co., sued out a writ of attachment against one James Priestly, which contained the statement that it had been suggested that A. T. Semmes was indebted to Priestly.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison County. Hon. T. J. Wharton, Judge. In 1886, Patterson, Henry & Co., sued out a writ of attachment against one James Priestly, which contained the statement that it had been suggested that A. T. Semmes was indebted to Priestly. The clerk failed to insert therein the command to the sheriff to summon Semmes to answer as to such indebtedness, as required by § 2422, Code of 1880. The sheriff’s return on the writ was as follows: “Executed personally on A. T. Semmes [and others, naming them], by reading to each of them the within writ of garnishment, and…
1Opinion of the CourtArnold, J.
The suggestion in the writ as to the indebtedness of appellant, was sufficient to authorize and require him to be summoned as garnishee. On this suggestion being made by the attaching creditors, it was the duty of the clerk issuing the writ to insert therein a command to the officer to whom the writ was directed, to summon appellant as garnishee. Code, § 2422. But the failure of the clerk to perform this duty, did not defeat the right of the attaching creditors based on their suggestion of indebtedness by appellant, to have him garnished. It was the duty of the sheriff, under § 2423 of the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Dogan v. BarnesMississippi Supreme Court · 1898