First National Bank of Dagsboro v. Lofland
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Rodney, J.,
delivering the opinion of the court:
It is admitted by the plaintiff that, as a general rule, a garnishment cannot be maintained against a personal representative such as an executor or administrator in such a way as to permit an attachment to interfere with, or create priorities with regard to, the estate which the personal representative is administering. Lyons’ Adm’rs v. Houston’s Ex’r, 2 Harr. 349. It is contended by the plaintiff, however, that when the estate has been settled and an amount of money remains in the hands of the representatives with no further duty to perform…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Amos v. CampbellSupreme Court of Florida · 1860
- Walker v. CaldwellCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1896
- Netter v. StoeckleSuperior Court of Delaware · 1903
- President of Farmers Bank v. BallSuperior Court of Delaware · 1900
- In re VernonSuperior Court of Delaware · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cheff v. Athlone Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1967
- Shakin v. AbramsUnited States District Court · 1934