Ingersoll v. First National Bank
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Proceedings were instituted by D. W. Ingersoll & Co., plaintiffs, against the First National Bank, Garnishee of S. S. Eaton, defendant. Testimony was taken before a referee on the 5th of January, 1865, pursuant to an order of the District Court of Ramsey county.
Read the full summary
Proceedings were instituted by D. W. Ingersoll & Co., plaintiffs, against the First National Bank, Garnishee of S. S. Eaton, defendant. Testimony was taken before a referee on the 5th of January, 1865, pursuant to an order of the District Court of Ramsey county. J. E. Thompson, the president of said bank, testified in substance, that he knew S. S. Eaton ; that Eaton had no account in the books of the bank, nor has he made any deposits there; there .appears on our deposit ledger the name of “ Samuel S. Eaton, Agentaccording to the books the balance this morning to the credit of “ Samuel S.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court —
Wilson, C. J.
— Proceedings against a garnishee are for the purpose of reaching the property of the defendant.
The deposit of money in the bank in the name of “ Samuel S. Eaton, Agent,” is not conclusive evidence that the money was the property of said Eaton, or that the bank thereby became his debtor. If the money is not the property of the defendant, the plaintiff is not legally or equitably entitled to it.' The garnishee having denied any indebtedness to the defendant, or the possession or control of any property, money, or effects belonging to him, the plaintiff can only…
2Cited by3 opinions
- In re M. E. Dunn & Co.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1912
- Home Land & Loan Co. v. RouthSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Rock Island Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Fourth National BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1901