Brooks v. Fields
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from District Court, Logan County; John H. Burford, Judge. Action by Nat. J. Fields against Frederick Schwartz, with summons in garnishment against J. M. Brooks. From a judgment against the garnishee, he brings error. Citing: Pence v. Durbin, 1 Idaho, 550; Ruch v. Jones, 33'Mo. 393; Hoopes v. Implement Co., 45 Kan. 553; Greenfield v. Steamer Gunnell, 6 Cal. 67; Champ v. Kendrich, 130 Ind. 549; Kirby v. Corning, 54 Wis. 599.
1Opinion of the CourtKane, C. J.
The action out of which the question before this court for determination grew was commenced by one Fields against one Schwartz to recover the sum of $144.08, balance alleged to be due him for salary.- Fields filed an affidavit in garnishment, stating, in effect, that J. M. Brooks is indebted to and has personal property in his possession and under his control belonging to said defendant. Upon this affidavit summons in garnishment was served upon Brooks, whereupon in due time he answered, omitting the caption, as follows:
“Comes the Garnishee, J". M. Brooks, and states for his answer that he…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Fearey v. CummingsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Plant & Son v. Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
- Roberts & Co. v. LandeckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Padden v. MooreSupreme Court of Iowa · 1882
- Empire Car-Roofing Co. v. MaceyIllinois Supreme Court · 1885
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. CourtneyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
- Moral Insurance Co. v. StevesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1953
- First Nat. Bank of Cordell v. City Guaranty Bank of HobartSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Woods v. Amulco Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951
- Wallace v. DukeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.