Cameron v. Stollenwerck
Supreme Court of Alabama
Weit of error to the Circuit Court of Greene. This was an action of debt on a specialty, for the payment of four hundred dollars. The defendants pleaded several pleas, among which was the pica of “former recovery.”
Read the full summary
Weit of error to the Circuit Court of Greene. This was an action of debt on a specialty, for the payment of four hundred dollars. The defendants pleaded several pleas, among which was the pica of “former recovery.” On the trial of an issue upon this plea, it was shown ®that the defendants were summoned as garnishees, at the suit of Lewis S. Fellows, who-had recovered several judgments against the plaintiff) to appear before the justice of the peace who rendered them, and answer as to their indebtedness to the plaintiff. They appeared and answered, that they had executed the specialty on which…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
By the twenty-fourth section of the attachment law, it is enacted, that “the defendant may in all cases show,by competent testimony, that -a garnishee is indebted' to him hi a: greater amount than he is willing to admit on oáth.” [Clay’s'Dig. 60.] This provision is exceedingly imperfect, and is wholly unexplained by any other part of the act in which it is found. It is no whore provided, that the defendant in attachment or execution, shall be permitted to negative the garnishee’s answer, and thus form an issue to try its truth by a jury. This the plaintiff is permitted to do, by the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Grates v. CooperSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845