Legal Opinion

Gladden v. Columbiana Sav. Bank

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided October 3, 1939No. 6 Div. 462PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RICE, Judge. •

A few principles of the law governing the disposition of this appeal may well here be set down, towit:

1. “The relative rights of the plaintiffs and of the garnishee depend upon the status existing when the writ of garnishment was served.” Bloch Bros. v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. et al., 208 Ala. 523, 94 So. 562, 564.

2. “If a garnishee * * * relies on a general denial of indebtedness, and an issue is formed contesting his answer, on the trial of such issue * * * The only fact in issue is, whether when the garnishment was served, or at the time of answer [or at any…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Sloss v. GlazeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
  2. Allen v. WoodruffAlabama Court of Appeals · 1911
  3. Bessemer Savings Bank v. AndersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1901
  4. Fowler v. WilliamsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
  5. Gladden v. Columbiana Sav. BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Ginsberg v. GoldsteinDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
  2. Darby v. McGregor (In Re Darby)United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Alabama · 1998
  3. Rohlf v. StruckmeyerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1946
  4. Gladden v. Columbiana Savings BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API