Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Smith v. Wells

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 23, 1945No. File No. 8717Published

1ConcurrenceRoberts, Judge

I concur in reversal of the order on the ground that the garnishment statute did not require service of the garnishee summons and affidavit upon the principal defendant who is a nonresident and hence the ten day provision has no application.

Garnishment is an ancillary proceeding and if jurisdiction of the defendant is obtained in the main action the several steps in the garnishment proceeding are not jurisdictional as to him. 38 C. J. S., Garnishment, § 162; Rood on Garnishment, § 280; First Nat. Bank v. Knight, 127 Okl. 20, 259 P. 565; Wright v. Southern R. Co., 141 N. C. 164, 53 S. E. 831;…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Encyclopedia Press, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
  2. Zimek v. Illinois National Casualty Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Foster v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  4. McAnaw v. MatthisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
  5. Chanute v. MartinIllinois Supreme Court · 1860

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API