Eastlund v. Armstrong
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Douglas county: A. J. Yxsje, Circuit Judge. On October 17, 1901, this action was commenced in the municipal court of Superior to recover $22.15, being a bill for groceries sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the de fendant, Armstrong, and at the same time the corporation known as the Duluth-Superior Milling Company was garnished.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Douglas county: A. J. Yxsje, Circuit Judge. On October 17, 1901, this action was commenced in the municipal court of Superior to recover $22.15, being a bill for groceries sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the de fendant, Armstrong, and at the same time the corporation known as the Duluth-Superior Milling Company was garnished. In the affidavit of garnishment it was stated, in effect, that said corporation was indebted to the defendant, Armstrong, and had “personal property, money, credits, or effects in its possession or under its control”…
1Opinion of the Court
Oassoday, O. J.
The proceedings in garnishment are statutory. In order to garnish the defendant corporation, it was necessary that the affidavit therefor should, among other things, state that the indebtedness from the corporation to the defendant, Armstrong, was “not by law exempt from sale on execution.” Sec. 3716, Stats. 1898. The affidavit in question does so state. From the time of the garnishment the statute made the corporation “stand liable to the plaintiff to the amount” of its indebtedness to Armstrong “then due or to become due, and not by law exempt from sale on execution.” Sec.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hixon v. Oneida CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Chapman v. SuttonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
- Lewis v. Chicago & Nortwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by1 opinion
- State ex rel. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. PauliWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905