Garland v. Grinnell
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT This case commenced by a rule taken by Garland & Osburn, attaching creditors of W. P. Grinnell, during the pendency of their suit, on Grinnell, Minturn & Co., judgment creditors by attachment of the same defendant, and who were proceeding to execute their judgment on the property attached, to show cause why the fund's attached in the two cases should not remain in the hands of the garnishees for equal distribution.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT This case commenced by a rule taken by Garland & Osburn, attaching creditors of W. P. Grinnell, during the pendency of their suit, on Grinnell, Minturn & Co., judgment creditors by attachment of the same defendant, and who were proceeding to execute their judgment on the property attached, to show cause why the fund's attached in the two cases should not remain in the hands of the garnishees for equal distribution. The evidence showed that when the rule was taken, Grinnell, Minturn & Co. attached the property of W. P. Grinnell, an absent…
1Opinion of the CourtBullard, J.
In this case it appears that Grinnell, Minturn & Co. having sued the defendant Grinnell by attachment, and obtained a judgment, were impeded in the execution of it by *59Garland & Osburn, other attaching creditors, whose suit is yet pending, and who obtained from the District Court, a rule on them to show cause why the funds attached, in the two eases, should not remain deposited in the hands of the garnishees for equal distribution, in satisfaction of the claims of the attaching creditors.
The creditoi judg-meh^in at* taehment,iiasthe. much of the protoother creditor has a between him and debtor…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Strawberry Growers' Selling Co. v. LewellynSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1925