Daniel v. Hopper
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writ of error to the County Court of Montgomery. On the first of February, 1843, oath was duly made, that the plaintiffs in error had recovered a judgment in the orphans’ court of Montgomery, against Anderson Thomas, for the sum of twenty-eight hundred and seventy-one 60-100 dollars, besides costs; that the defendant in the judgment had no property in his possession to satisfy the same; and that affiant had just reason to believe that the defendant in error is indebted to…
Read the full summary
Writ of error to the County Court of Montgomery. On the first of February, 1843, oath was duly made, that the plaintiffs in error had recovered a judgment in the orphans’ court of Montgomery, against Anderson Thomas, for the sum of twenty-eight hundred and seventy-one 60-100 dollars, besides costs; that the defendant in the judgment had no property in his possession to satisfy the same; and that affiant had just reason to believe that the defendant in error is indebted to him, &c. A garnishment was immediately issued in pursuance of the affidavit, and served on the garnishee, as shown by the…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
The act of 1818, after providing that a garnishment may be issued where the plaintiff or other credible person shall make affidavit that the defendant has no property in his possession, &c., authorizes the court, to cause the person supposed to be indebted, &c., to be summoned to appear forthwith before such court, as a garnishee, &c. [Clay’s Dig. 259, sec, 2.] By summoning the garnishee, is meant nothing more than to give him notice of the contents of the process issued against him, that he may appear at the time it prescribes. True, the garnishment, like all other process, should be served…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Gould v. MeyerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
- Ex parte ScottSupreme Court of Alabama · 1872
- Price Williams & Sons v. McConnicoSupreme Court of Alabama · 1870