Jones v. Howell
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Butler. The defendant in error, Samuel A. Howell, having a judgment against one. Cunningham, sued out a summons of garnishment against the plaintiff in error, as administrator of Samuel Howell, deceased.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Butler. The defendant in error, Samuel A. Howell, having a judgment against one. Cunningham, sued out a summons of garnishment against the plaintiff in error, as administrator of Samuel Howell, deceased. The facts will be found sufficiently set out in the opinion of the court. 1. The judgment nisi in this case was improperly rendered by the court below, as appears by the record, because the garnishee had answered in writing, and as no objection had been made,, the presumption was that all objection to it was waived-If the objection was not waived, the answer…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, J.
The garnishee answered in writing, and it is clear from the minute entry, that the answer at length was made part of the record. It can, therefore, be regarded as such. — Gaines v. Bierne, 3 Ala. Rep. 114; Fortune v. The State Bank, 4 Ala. Rep. 385. The truth of the answer was not denied, but it was treated by the plaintiff in the garnishment as a true answer. The garnishment is sued out against Jones, the plaintiff in error, as the administrator of Samuel Howell, deceased, suggesting that the plaintiff in error, as such *697administrator, was indebted to Cunningham, the defendant in a judgment,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gaines v. BeirneSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
- Fortune v. State BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- Mock v. KingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
3Cited by4 opinions
- Gunn v. HowellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
- Bland v. BowieSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Lewis v. Dubose & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1856
- Decatur, Chesapeake & New Orleans Railway Co. v. CrassSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892