Barkley v. Kerfoot
Washington Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Franklin county, Holcomb, J., entered January 17, 1913, discharging a garnishee, after a hearing before the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMorris, J.
Appellant, having obtained a judgment against Kerfoot, garnisheed respondent Pinckney, who was a tenant of Kerfoot’s under a written lease with rent payable monthly in advance. The rent for the current month having been paid at the time of the issuance and service of the garnishment, the garnishee was discharged, and Barkley appeals, contending that the garnishee should be held under the writ for future installments of rent to become due under the lease.
We cannot so hold. The general rule is that a creditor can obtain no greater relief against a garnishee than exists in favor of the debtor.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Wood v. PartridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Bellingham Bay Boom Co. v. BrisboisWashington Supreme Court · 1896
- Sallaske v. FletcherWashington Supreme Court · 1913
- Marx v. ParkerWashington Supreme Court · 1894
- Thorp v. PrestonMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Eakle v. HayesWashington Supreme Court · 1936
- Sundberg v. Boeing Airplane Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1958
- Calechman v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- McCann v. ReederWashington Supreme Court · 1934
- Maury v. Toledo Logging Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1931
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.