Legal Opinion

Tombs v. Moore

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 21, 1896PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from the Pike Circuit Court. — Hon. Reuben E. Rol, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.

The garnishee herein was allowed $15 for answering. He was dissatisfied and has brought the matter here for review. The claim is that the amount of the allowance is grossly' inadequate.

This appeal is without merit, for the reason that under the facts disclosed by the record the garnishee was not entitled to anything. In two cases only can a garnishee claim an allowance for answering to a garnishment. If by his answer, not excepted to or denied, he confesses that he owes the defendant or has property in his hands belonging to him which is subject to garnishment, he will be entitled to a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Osborne v. SchuttSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
  2. Stotesbury v. KirtlandMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
  3. Marchildon v. O'HaraMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ferneau v. Armour and CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1957
  2. First National Bank in Chester v. ConnerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1972
  3. Capital One Bank v. EDISON CREDIT UNIONMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. Barnard & Lease Manufacturing Co. v. Monett Milling Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1899
  5. Locke v. WoodmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1922

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API