Norris v. Burgoyne
California Supreme Court
Writ op Error to the Sixth Judicial District. This was an action originally commenced against one George Gahan, in which an attachment was laid in the hands of Burgoyne & Co., March 12th, 1851. John Y. Plume filed an answer for himself and William M. Burgoyne, denying that Burgoyne & Co. were indebted to Gahan, or had any property of his in their possession, or under their control.
Read the full summary
Writ op Error to the Sixth Judicial District. This was an action originally commenced against one George Gahan, in which an attachment was laid in the hands of Burgoyne & Co., March 12th, 1851. John Y. Plume filed an answer for himself and William M. Burgoyne, denying that Burgoyne & Co. were indebted to Gahan, or had any property of his in their possession, or under their control. The answer stated that Gahan, on the 31st of December, 1850, bought a bill of exchange from Burgoyne & Co. for $1400, in favor of one E. H. Potts, upon their correspondents at New Orleans; that the firm had been…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Heydeneeldt
Mr. Oh. J. Murray concurred.
A garnishee can only be required to answer as to his liability to the debtor defendant, at the time of the service of the garnishment. In this case the garnishment was served on the 12th of March. The jury find that the garnishees had money of the defendants, subsequent to the 12th of March. This finding will not support the judgment, because the garnishment is an attachment of existing debts, and what does not exist cannot be attached.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Davis v. ClaxtonMontana Supreme Court · 1928
- Smith v. Crocker First National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Street v. ReingkeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Steineck v. Haas-Baruch Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
- Gardner v. Pioneer-Pacific Worsted Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.