Cross v. Williams
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Hempstead County. In May, 1833, Nathaniel M. Motby brought an action of assump-sit, by attachment, against Edward Peacock, under the Territorial attachment law, and summoned Edward Cross as garnishee. A.t the May term, 1834, Motby took judgment against Peacock.
Read the full summary
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Hempstead County. In May, 1833, Nathaniel M. Motby brought an action of assump-sit, by attachment, against Edward Peacock, under the Territorial attachment law, and summoned Edward Cross as garnishee. A.t the May term, 1834, Motby took judgment against Peacock. Allegations and interrogatories were filed against Cross as garnishee; he answered, and the cause was continued from term to term, until April, 1842, when the death of Motby was suggested, and the case revived in the name of Williams, as his administrator, who obtained judgment against Cross as…
1Opinion of the CourtOldham, J.
The suit against the garnisheee, under our present attachment law, as well as the territorial law, is but an incident to the original attachment suit. The plaintiff must recover a judgment against the defendant in the latter proceeding, to authorize one in his favor in the former. The process of garnishment is but a means to enforce the payment of the debt due by the defendant in the attach, ment suit.. An executor or administrator cannot enforce the execution of the judgment rendered during the life-time of the testator or intestate, without reviving the judgment in his name, as the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dardenne v. BennettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1842
- Roane v. HintonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1846