Ex parte Jenks
Supreme Court of Alabama
Harriet E. Jenks filed her petition, addressed to the Judges of the Supreme Court, in which she averred that J. E. Loxley & Son recovered a judgment against William Turner and others in the city court of Mobile ; that on said judgment a writ of garnishment was issued and served upon one Charles W. Stanton ; that said Stanton as garnishee answered, admitting indebtedness to the defendant, but suggested that the moneys in his hands were claimed by the petitioner ; that in a…
Read the full summary
Harriet E. Jenks filed her petition, addressed to the Judges of the Supreme Court, in which she averred that J. E. Loxley & Son recovered a judgment against William Turner and others in the city court of Mobile ; that on said judgment a writ of garnishment was issued and served upon one Charles W. Stanton ; that said Stanton as garnishee answered, admitting indebtedness to the defendant, but suggested that the moneys in his hands were claimed by the petitioner ; that in a claim suit which was thereupon inaugurated, the petitioner, a female, who was a resident of Mobile county, was examined as…
1Opinion of the CourtHead, J.
We have no doubt that section 2813 of the Code means to include females, residing in the county, whose depositions have been taken, as authorized by section 2801, in the class of witnesses whose personal attendance the court is authorized to require, upon the prescribed affidavit being made that such personal attendance is necessary. It is true that the depositions of persons residing in the county, other than females, taken in pursuance of said section 2801, are by force of section 2812, rendered da bena esse only, and can not be used if the statutory causes for which they were taken do not…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Ex Parte BrooksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1947
- Hughes v. HughesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1948