Legal Opinion

Tuthill v. Moulton

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided November 4, 1899No. 372PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error from Mitchell district court; N. M. Pickler, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mahan, P. J.:

In a suit by Tuthill against Moulton to recover money upon a promissory note and upon-an account, Mayer, Spirit Spring Lodge No. 159, I. O. O. F., and Cawker City Lodge No. 41, A. O. U. W., were garnishees, under the provisions of chapter 151, Laws of 1889 (Gen. Stat. 1899, §§ 4450-4473). By this proceeding Tuthill, the plaintiff below, seeks to have reversed a judgment discharging said garnishees from liability to him as such. They were not served with a copy of the case-made or with notice of its settlement, as required by the order of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Central Kansas Loan & Investment Co. v. Chicago Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1894
  2. Bain v. Connecticut Mutual Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1895
  3. Hyde Park Investment Co. v. First National BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1895
  4. Matthewson v. SeniorCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1895
  5. Pierce v. DowneySupreme Court of Kansas · 1896

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Grant v. ReedSupreme Court of Kansas · 1947
  2. Ting v. BornHawaii Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Stephens College v. LongSupreme Court of Kansas · 1943

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API