Wheeler v. Walter J. Bryson Co.
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Chambliss
This hill was filed to reach by attachment and garnishment on the City of Nashville funds owing by the City to the defendant Bryson Company, a non-resident corporation. The justness of complainant’s debt against Bryson Company is not questioned, and a decree pro confesso was permitted to be taken as to it. However, the City demurred on the ground that a municipal corporation is not subject to garnishment, except insofar as expressly authorized by Chap. 29, Acts of 1921, which, it is said, must be limited in application to “officers and employees,” and that Bryson Company, a contracting…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cavender v. HewittTennessee Supreme Court · 1921
- Sledge v. HuntTennessee Supreme Court · 1928
- Portsmouth Gas Co. v. SanfordSupreme Court of Virginia · 1899
- City of Laredo v. NalleTexas Supreme Court · 1886
- Moore v. HeaneyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1860
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation v. Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- Stump Corp. v. Tribunal Superior de Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1970
- City of Phoenix v. Collar, Williams & White Engineering, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1970
- Holston Union Nat. Bank Ex Rel. Allen v. Knox CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1942
- Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation v. Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.