Kneeland v. Cowles
Wisconsin Supreme Court
ERROR to the Circuit Court for Mihuaukee County. A suit was commenced, by Cowles and Bass against James Holden and De Witt Holden, by attachment, and process of garnishment was issued against James Kneeland, William Brown and Milton K Lyman-, composing the firm of James Kneeland & Co., and served with a copy of the attachment, requiring them to appear in court on the return day of the attachment, the first Monday in February, 1850, and answer, etc.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Circuit Court for Mihuaukee County. A suit was commenced, by Cowles and Bass against James Holden and De Witt Holden, by attachment, and process of garnishment was issued against James Kneeland, William Brown and Milton K Lyman-, composing the firm of James Kneeland & Co., and served with a copy of the attachment, requiring them to appear in court on the return day of the attachment, the first Monday in February, 1850, and answer, etc. The plaintiffs obtained judgment against the defendants in the attachment suit, on the return day of the writ, by default, for $1,045.80 damages…
1Opinion of the Court
Hubbei/l, 0. J.
Several points were decided in this case, which I shall consider in their order.
1. The service of the garnishee process was regular and valid. It is not necessary, under the present statute, to attach the rights or credits of the principal debtor, in the hands of a garnishee. It is enough, if the officer cannot attach property and get possession thereof, that he shall “serve the writ and affidavit upon such person, by giving him a copy thereof, with a written notice that he appear in court at the return of such writ.” R. S., ch. 112, sec. 32. Nor was it necessary that the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Robertson v. KinkheadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
- Ball v. BoweWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Wooldridge v. IrvingUnited States Circuit Court · 1884