Leingardt v. Deitz
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Pulaski Circuit Court. Hon. J. J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge. The Circuit Court erred in rendering judgment de novo against • defendant, where there had been no appeal from the judgment by default below. Gantt’s Digest, 3820. No garnishment could issue againfet the R. R. except as incident to an attachment, or after judgment.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Pulaski Circuit Court. Hon. J. J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge. The Circuit Court erred in rendering judgment de novo against • defendant, where there had been no appeal from the judgment by default below. Gantt’s Digest, 3820. No garnishment could issue againfet the R. R. except as incident to an attachment, or after judgment. Gantt’s Digest, 2991;. 5 Ark., 214. The act of 1871 (see Gantt’s Digest, sections 396, 397) is part, of the attachment law, and its provisions only apply in such cases, otherwise garnishments issue only on judgments. See Gantt’s Digest, 2991 to 3002 inclusive.…
1Opinion of the Court
Harrison, J.:
H, Deitz sued A. Liugardt on an account before a justice of the peace, and also, at the commencement of the suit, but without an attachment against the property of the defendant, or filing any bond or affidavit therefor, sued out a writ of garnishment against the Cairo and Fulton Railroad Company.
The writ of garnishment was served, and, upon the return day, the company appeared by its attorney and, without any allegations and interrogatories being filed, admitted, as the justice’s docket states, an indebtedness to the defendant sufficient to satisfy whatever judgment might be…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Allen v. StracenerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949
- Arnold v. McLellanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910