Coffee v. Haynes
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, requiring the Chief of Police of said City and County, as garnishee, to pay moneys under an execution. John Hunt, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action for the value of certain legal services as attorneys-at-law rendered defendant Haynes by plaintiff’s assignors. Plaintiff recovered default judgment for nineteen hundred and twenty dollars on June 31, 1898, and on the same day a writ of execution was duly issued in the action and was served upon appellant Lees June 33d, as garnishee. Appellant answered as follows: “San Francisco, June 33, 1898. (Directed to the sheriff.) Dear Sir: Replying to your process of garnishment .... I have in my possession no moneys .... belonging to Theodore P. Haynes, .... except such as has come…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ex parte HurnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Kimball v. Richardson Kimball Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Gilman v. WilliamsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
- In re Estate NeracCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- High v. Bank of CommerceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Encyclopedia Press, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- People v. LawrenceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Agnew v. CroninCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Baar v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Miller v. TurnerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1934
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.