Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Dooley
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the lion. O. J. Semmes. , cited. Brooldyn v. insurance Go., 99 U. S. 362; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 E. S. 714; Insurance Go. v. Bangs, 103 U. S. 435; Hart v. Sansom, 110 U. S. 156; Ileidritter v. Oil-cloth Go., 112 U. S. 295; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wallace, 308; Tingley ■o.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the lion. O. J. Semmes. , cited. Brooldyn v. insurance Go., 99 U. S. 362; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 E. S. 714; Insurance Go. v. Bangs, 103 U. S. 435; Hart v. Sansom, 110 U. S. 156; Ileidritter v. Oil-cloth Go., 112 U. S. 295; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wallace, 308; Tingley ■o. Bateman, 10 Mass. 343; Bates v. Railroad Go., 60 Wise. 296; 78 Ky. 250; Railroad Go. v.' Thornton, 60 Geo. 300; Wheat v. . Railroad Go., 4 Kans. 370; lawtem.ee v. Smith, 45 N II. 530 ; 1 Gray, Mass. 424; Gent/ral R R.
1Opinion of the CourtStone, C. J.
Suit was brought in Mobile county, Alabama, by attachment, in favor of Jane Dooley,-against Thomas Schcible, and the only service effected was a writ of garnishment claimed to have been served on the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. The service was in the following language: “Executed by leaving a copy with E. McCartney, July 7, 1885;” signed by the officer. McCartney filed an answer for the railroad corporation, in which he set forth “ that, as agent of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, he is [was] duly authorized to answer for them the garnishment ” in the said cause. He…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hodges Bros. v. Coleman & CarrollSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- National Commercial Bank v. Miller & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Tingley v. BatemanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. CarrSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Bates v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- McKnett v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Ex Parte Southern Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1989
- Dozier Lumber Co. v. Smith-Isburg Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1905
- Pullman Palace Car Co. v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
- Drake v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1888
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.