Peacock v. Pembroke
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Saint Mary’s county. This was an attachment, issued at the instance of Peacock, as assignee of the State, on the 29th of October 1850, against Russell and Clarke, and laid in the hands of Pembroke, as garnishee, who appeared and moved to quash the writ, forth e reasons stated in the opinion of this court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Saint Mary’s county. This was an attachment, issued at the instance of Peacock, as assignee of the State, on the 29th of October 1850, against Russell and Clarke, and laid in the hands of Pembroke, as garnishee, who appeared and moved to quash the writ, forth e reasons stated in the opinion of this court. The writ recites, that at March term 1848 of Saint Mary’s county court, the State recovered judgment against Russell, Peacock and Clarke, which judgment the said Peacock hath since paid and satisfied to the State, “ and the said State hath made over and…
1Opinion of the CourtEccleston, J.
Under a motion to quash this attachment four reasons have been assigned:
1st. That the attachment could not properly issue in the name of Peacock, who was a party defendant in the judgment.
2nd. That the attachment issued after the judgment on which it was issued was dead.
3rd. That the assignment could not be made by the State of Maryland.
4th. That if the assignment could be made by the State of Maryland, it was not properly made.
Jn our opinion the third reason furnishes a sufficient ground *350for affirming the judgment, and therefore the others need not be considered.
The appellant’s counsel…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Norwood v. NorwoodCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1806
3Cited by1 opinion
- McKnew v. DuvallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1877