Legal Opinion

Ralston Purina Co. v. King

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 1, 1937No. 18781PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1. Garnishment 13

Where defendant can maintain no action against garnishee for money garnished in his hands, plaintiff cannot maintain action.

2. Garnishment 114

Garnishment action can be maintained against garnishee who permits defendant to stay constantly in debt to garnishee so that at no time would defendant have any amount due him over and above his indebtedness, subject to garnishment, and who at same time permits defendant to draw his salary without regard to such indebtedness.

3. Garnishment 114

Wages of debtor due at time of service of summons to garnishee, or earned between that date and…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bambrick v. Bambrick Bros. Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
  2. Dinkins v. Crunden-Martin Woodenware Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
  3. Walkeen Lewis Millinery Co. v. JohnsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
  4. Wolfley v. WootenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1927
  5. State Ex Rel. Kennedy v. HarrisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1934

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Wade v. Midwest Acceptance Corp. (In Re Wade)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
  2. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Fidelity National Bank & Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1937
  3. Chenoweth v. La MasterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1961
  4. Caffey v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1956
  5. Coastal Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. HutchinsOregon Supreme Court · 1961

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

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

Powered by the Exa API