Moore & Co. v. Kelley
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Monroe Circuit Court. Hon. M. T. Sanders, Circuit Judge. Appellants claim that in actions of this kind, where an attachment is issued and garnishments served on different-parties who owe defendant, that the garnishment is only incidental- to the main suit between plaintiff and defendant; and that is even so in judicial garnishment.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Monroe Circuit Court. Hon. M. T. Sanders, Circuit Judge. Appellants claim that in actions of this kind, where an attachment is issued and garnishments served on different-parties who owe defendant, that the garnishment is only incidental- to the main suit between plaintiff and defendant; and that is even so in judicial garnishment. From the time the garnishment is served, the property that is in the garnishee’s hands is in the custody of the law, and, as was said by the supreme court of the United States in the case of Brashcars v. West, J Peters, 608, “ the said garnishee is not…
1Opinion of the CourtCockrill, C. J.
The appellants brought an action in the Monroe circuit court, on a money demand against Alfred Owens, and caused an attachment to issue under which D. W. Kelley and W. W. Spence were summoned as garnishees. After the appellants had obtained judgment in personam against the defendant, and the attachment had been sustained, the garnishees appeared and answered -r the one that he was in • debted to the defendant in the sum of $64; the other, $50. When the court was apprised that the indebtedness of each garnishee was less than tihe amount of which circuit courts entertain jurisdiction, an order…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lawrence v. Ford Motor Credit Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1970
- Pace v. J. S. Merrill Drug Co.Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · 1899
- Traylor v. AllenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895